Jordan v Adams
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 February 1861 |
| Date | 08 February 1861 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 142 E.R. 190
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 30 L. J. C. P. 161; 4 L. T. 775; 7 Jur. N. S. 973; 9 W. K. 593. Referred to, Bradley v. Cartwright, 1867, L. R. 2 C. P. 523; Pedder v. Hunt, 1887, 18 Q. B. D. 572. Distinguished, Saville v. Saville, [1896] 1 L. R. 260.
[483] in the exchequer chamber. jordan v. adams. Feb. 8th, 1861. [S. C. 30 L. J. C. P. 161 ; 4 L. T. 775; 7 Jur. N. S. 973; 9 W. K. 593. Referred to, Bradley v. Cartwright, 1867, L. R. 2 C. P. 523; Pedder v. Hunt, 1887, 18 Q. B. D. S72. Distinguished, Savilk v. Savilk, [1896] 1 I. R. 260.] Devise of lands to trustees, upon trust " to permit and suffer W. J. to occupy and enjoy, or to receive and take the rents, issues, and profits thereof for his own use and benefit during his natural life; and, after the decease of W. J., then to permit and suffer the heirs male of his body to occupy and enjoy the same, or to receive and take the rents, issues, and profits thereof for their several natural lives, in succession, according to their respective seniorities, or in such parts and proportions, manner and form, and amongst them, as the said W. J., their father, shall by deed or will direct, limit, or appoint; and, in default of such issue male of the said W. J., then over:"-Held,-in the Exchequer Chamber,-by Cockburn, C. J., and Wightman, J., that W. J. took an estate for life only; and by Martin, B., and Channell, B., that he took an estate-tail. This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, to recover damages for the non-completion of a contract entered into between the plaintiff and Thomas Adams, deceased, for the purchase by the said Thomas Adams, deceased, from the plaintiff, of a certain farm, lands, and hereditaments situate in Armscott, in the county of Worcester; and by a judge's order a case was stated for the opinion of the court of Common Pleas. The case stated that, on or about the 18th of May, 1825, John Jordan, ;of Armscott, by his last will and testament in writing, bearing date the day and year; last aforesaid, arid duly executed and attested as by law required for passing real and personal property, gave and devised as follows (a)2 :- " 5. And, as to all other my freehold and leasehold estates situate at Armscott aforesaid, consisting of various messuages, buildings, homestalls, cottages, and seven yard lands and a half, with right of common thereunto respectively belonging, the said close called Tubb's Close, and all other my freehold and leasehold estates, closes, lauds, hereditaments, and premises at Armscott aforesaid, with the commons and other (a)1 See In re Laing and Todd, 13 C. B. 276. (a)2 The whole will was made part of the case, and is set out atite, vol. vi., p. 748 ; but the fifth clause was the one upon which the decision ultimately turned. 9 0. B. (N. S.) 4M, JORDAN V. ADAMS 191 [484] rights, members, and appurtenances thereunto respectively belonging, I direct and appoint my said trustees, their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, to stand and remain seised and possessed of, and to permit and suffer my said kinsman the said William Jordan (the plaintiff), son of my said cousin Richard, to occupy and enjoy or to receive and take the rents, issues, and profits thereof for his own use and benefit during his natural life : And I charge the same several estates with the payment of an annuity of 501. a year to his father the said Richard Jordan, which annuity I direct shall be paid him half-yearly during his natural life, and 1 dense and bequeath the same to him accordingly : And, after the decease of the said William Jordan, then to permit and suffer the heirs male of his body to occupy and enjoy the same, or to receive and take the rents, issues, and profits thereof for their several natural lives, in succession, according to their respective seniorities, or in such parts and proportions, manner and forni, and amongst them, as the said William Jordan their father shall bj deed or will duly executed and attested as by law is required for devising and disposing of real estates, direct, limit, or appoint: And, in default of such issue male of the said William Jordan, then upon trust to and for the use of his brother Richard Jordan, a younger son of my said cousin Richard, and his heirs male, in such pirts and proportions, manner and form, as he the said Richard Jordan the younger shall by deed or will duly executed as aforesaid direct or appoitit, charged and chargeable, nevertheless, and I do accordingly hereby expressly charge the same several estates, lands, tenements, and premises, in case the said Richard Jordan the younger or his heirs should so as aforesaid become seised and possessed thereof, with the payment of the sum of 20001. unto and equally amongst and [485] between the daughters or daughter of the said William Jordan (if any), to whom I give and bequeath the same accoi"dingly, to be paid to them respectively as they shall attain the age of twenty-one yeara, with interest from the time of the above devise becoming vested in the said Richard Jordan the younger and his heirs as aforesaid : And, from arid after the performance of the aforesaid trusts, and subject thereto, then my said trustees shall stand and remain seised and possessed of the said last-mentioned estate to and for the use and behoof of the right heirs of my cousin Robert Jordan, of Little Compton aforesaid for ever." By a codicil, bearing date the 10th of June, 18'26, the testator devised as follows :- " Whereas, by my said will I have devised to my trustees therein named three yard lands, and a homestall thereunto belonging, and in the occupation of William Badger, for the use of George Taylor, and as therein is mentioned : Now, I do hereby revoke the whale of the said devise, and in lieu and instead thereof 1 devise to them my said trustees, for the use of the said George Taylor, and as in my said will is mentioned, and charged with the like annuity to bis father, all that messuage or tenement, homestall, and premises, wherein I now live, and the two yard lands and a half thereunto belonging, formerly Taylor's, with all the appurtenances, except the four cottages and gardens, all which premises were by my said will given and devised to my kinsman William Jordan; and I devise to him my said kinsman William Jordan the said messuage, three yard lands, and cottages, and alao a close that lately belonged to Lord Wentworth, adjoining Bacon's estate, and devised by my will to Thomas Jordaii, which deviae, so far as it relates to the same close, I hereby all revoke; to hold to him my said kinsman William Jordan and his heirs, as in my said will is mentioned." [486] The testator died on or about the 1st of December, 1830, without having revoked (so far as the questions for the opinion of the court are concerned) his said wilt and codicil. The plaintiff is the William Jordan mentioned in the will and codicil; and the defendant is the executor the said Thomas Adams, deceased. The testator at the time of making his said will, and from thence until and at the time of his death, remained and was seised in his demesne as of fee of and in the farm, lands, and hereditaments in respect of which this action is brought; and such farm, lands, and hereditaments are part of the testator's estate at Armscott, and were comprised in the devise above set out. ;The questions for the opinion of the court were,-first, whether the plaintiff took under the said will and codicil a legal estate-tail in the property in respect of which the action is ^ brought,-secondly, whether he took under such will and codicil an equitable estate-tail in the said property. The case was twice argued in the court of Common Pleas; arid in Trinity Term, 192 JORDAN V. ADAMS 9 C. B. (N. S.) 487. 1859, that court, after time taken for deliberation, unanimously held, that, under the devise in question, William Jordan (the plaintitt) took only an estate for life. Against this decision the plaintiff appealed, and the case was argued in the Exchequer Chamber on the 30th of November last, before Cockburn, C. J., Wight-man, J., Martin, B., Bramwell, B., Channell, B., and Hill, J., by Kemplay (with whom was the Solicitor-General), for the appellant, and by Bovill, Q. C. (with whom was Archibald Smith), for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. The judges, being divided in opinion, proceeded to deliver their judgments seriatim^ as follows :- 487} channell, B. The question is what estate William Jordan took under the fifth head of devise in the will of John Jordan set out in the case. The testator by his will devised the lands in dispute to trustees. By the fifth head of his will he directed and appointed the trustees to stand seised thereof, to permit the said William Jordan to occupy the same or receive the rents and profits thereof for his own use during his natural life, and, after his decease, then to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ir Re Pennefather, Deceased Savile v Savile
...v. Lord Romney ENR 11 East, 594. Ginger d. White v. White Willes' Reports, 348. Hennessey v. BrayENR 33 Beav. 96. Jordan v. Adams ENR 9 C. B. (N. S.) 483, 497. Kershaw v. KershawENR 3 E. & B. 845. Lewis d. Ormond v. WatersENR 6 East, 336. Mellish v. MellishENR 2 B. & C. 520. Palmer v. Palme......
-
The Estate of Baron Keane, Owner and Petitioner; Continued in the Name of Henry John William Farrell, as Owner; and Further Continued in the Name of Henry John William Farrell Palliser, as Owner
...Gummore v. HowesENR 23 Beav. 184. In re Birks, Kenyon v. BirksELR [1900] 1 Ch. 417. Jesson v. WightENR 2 Bli. 1. Jordan v. AdamsENR 9 C. B. (N. S.) 483. Lowe v. Davies 2 Lord Raym. 1561. Morgan v. ThomasELR 9 Q. B. D. 643. Poole v. PooleUNK 3 B. & P. 627. Roddy v. Fitzgerald 6 H. L. Cas. 82......
-
Whitelaw v Whitelaw
...C. 82. Lees v. MosleyENR 1 Y. & C. Ex. 595. Ward v. Bevil 1 Y. & Jer. 512. Martin v. M'CauslandUNK 4 Ir. L. R. 340. Jordan v. AdamsENR 9 C. B. (N. S.) 483. Hannan v. DrewUNK 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 333. Eastwood v. AvisonELR L. R. 4. Ex. 141. King v. MellingENR 1 Ventr. 231. Crozier v. Crozier 2 Dr......
-
Anne Colclough v Beauchamp Henry Colclough, and Others
...App ANNE COLCLOUGH and BEAUCHAMP HENRY COLCLOUGH, AND OTHERS. FitzgeraldENR 6 H. L. C. 823. Jordan v. AdamsENR 9 C. B. N. S. 483. Kavanagh v. Moreland Kay's R. 16. Bradley v. Cartwright L R> 2 C. P. 571. Montgomery v. MontgomeryENRIR 8 Ir. Eq. 740; S. C. 3 Jon. & Lat. 47. Paris v. Millar 5 ......