Kellett and Another v Kellett
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 04 July 1815 |
| Date | 04 July 1815 |
| Court | Privy Council |
English Reports Citation: 3 E.R. 1055
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CHANCERY.
Mews' Dig. iv. 315, 330; xv. 670, 1449. Considered and explained in Singleton v. Tomlinson, 1878, 3 A. 0. 404, 424; and In re Salter, 1881, 44 L. T. 604.
Testator, seized of real and possessed of personal property, bequeaths various legacies "to be raised and levied from my properties by my executors," and then, after a specific devise of his interest in certain lands, says, "The "remainder of my properties I devise to my executors to make good the "above sums. And I also ordain, etc. and devise the said (naming the "executors) executors to this my last will, etc. also my Residuary Legatees, "share and share alike." Held by the Court below that there was a resulting trust as to the real estate for the heir at law, and the decree affirmed by the House of Lords-Lord Eldon (C.) and Lord Redesdale stating it as a case of infinite doubt; but that where there was a doubt the heir ought not to be excluded, the rule of law being that the heir cannot be disinherited, except by express words or necessary implication.
KELLETT V. KELLETT [1815] III DOW. [248] IRELAND. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CHANCERY. kellett, and Another,-Appellants; kellett,-Respondent [March 13, July 4, 1815]. [Mews' Dig. iv. 315, 330; xv. 670, 1449. Considered and explained in Singleton v. Tomlinson, 1878, 3 A. 0. 404, 424 ; and In re Sailer, 1881, 44 L. T. 604.] [Testator, seized of real and possessed of personal property, bequeaths various legacies " to be raised and levied from my properties by my executors," and then, after a specific devise of his interest in certain lands, says, " The " remainder of my properties I devise to my executors to make good the " above sums. And I also ordain, etc. and devise the said (naming the " executors) executors to this my last will, etc. also my residuary legatees, " share and share alike." Held by the Court below that there was a resulting trust as to the real estate for the heir at law, and the decree affirmed by the House of Lords-Lord Eldon (C.) and Lord Redesdale stating it as a case of infinite doubt; but that where there was a doubt the heir ought not to be excluded, the rule of law being that the heir cannot be disinherited, except by express words or necessary implication.] James Kellett, of Fordstown, in the county of Meath, being seized of considerable real estates, and possessed of a large personal estate, on May 19, 1809, made his will, which was executed and attested as is by law required to pass real estates, as follows : " I, James Kellett, bequeath to my two daughters, by Elizabeth...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wildes v Davies
...[The Vice-Chancellor said it had been decided that copyholds would pass by the word property in an unattested will, in Kellett v. Kellett (3 Dow, 248). Lord Eldon had rather inclined to think otherwise; but he affirmed the decree below, because he was unable to say that it was wrong.] (1) 1......
-
Windus v Windus
..."residuary legatee" as applying to anything but personal estate. I think that in that case in the House of Lords of Kellett v. Kellett (3 Dow, 248) we must understand Lord Eldon and Lord Redesdale to have been of opinion that, if there is nothing to qualify them, the words "legatee "or "res......
-
Cooney v Nicholls
...Beav. 561. In re More's Trust.ENR10 Hare 171. Windus v. Windus 6 D. M. & G. 562. Smyth v. Smyth 8 Ch. Div. 561. In Kellett v. KellettENR 3 Dow P. C. 248. Hamilton v. Foot I. R. 6 Eq. 572. Williams v. ClarkeENR 4 De G. & Sm. 472. Roody v. FitzgeraldENR6 H. L. C. 61. Leach v. Jay6 Ch. Div. 49......
-
Day v Daveron
...the word " property," not to describe his interest, but the property itself. Pogson v. Thomas (6 Bing. N. C. 337); Kellett v. Kellett (3 Dow, P. C. 248). [THE vice-chancellor. In Pogson v. Thomas the testatrix gave all the residue of her estate and effects, wheresoever and whatsoever, to ce......