King against Burchell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 November 1759 |
| Date | 08 November 1759 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 252
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Accuracy doubted, Jacobs v. Amyatt, 1794, 4 Bro. C. C. 542. Disapproved, Montgomery v. Montgomery, 1845, 3 Jo. & Lat. 58. See Woodhouse v. Herrick, 1855, 1 K. & J. 364; Morgan v. Thomas, 1882, 8 Q. B. D. 577.
[379] Case 197.-king against burchell. 29th June and 8th November 1759. [Accuracy doubted, Jacobs v. Amyatt, 1794, 4 Bro. C. C. 542. Disapproved, Montgomery v. Montgomery, 1845, 3 Jo. & Lat. 58. See Woodhouse v. Herrick, 1855, 1 K. & J. 364 Morgan v. Thomas, 1882, 8 Q. B. D. 577.] Devise of land to J. H. for life, remainder to his issue male, and to his and their heirs share and share alike, and for want of such issue, to his issue female, and her and their heirs, remainder to John King, his heirs and assigns, with a proviso, that if J. H. or his issue, or any of them, shall alienate, mortgage, or incumber, or do any act to defeat the bequests, he or they shall pay, and he charges the premises with 2000 to such person who should or ought to take next under the above limitations. J. H. had two daughters, and no son, and he and his daughter suffered a recovery. Bill to be paid the 2000. Held, J. H. took an estate tail, and that the proviso was repugnant to the estate.(l)-[Lib. Reg. 1759, A. fo. 561. S. C. 1 Eden, 424.] F, Wright v. Pearson, 2d and 6th June 1758. John Blunt, by will 26th October 1731, devised after the death of his wife, and failing issue of her body, all that messuage, &c., in the parish of Hunton and Linton, in Kent, unto his cousin John Harris, second son of Thomas Harris, by his sister Sarah, for life, remainder to the issue male of his cousin John Harris, and to his and their heirs, share and share alike, and for want of such issue, to the issue female of his cousin John Harris, and her and their heirs, and for want of such issue, to William King, his heirs and assigns for ever. He also gave other houses at Maidstone to his wife, remainder to his cousin John Harris, for life, and from and immediately after the determination of that estate, to the issue male of the body of his cousin John Karris, and to their heirs, and for want AMB. 380. KING V. BURCHELL 253 of such issue, to his cousin William King his heirs and assigns for ever, with a proviso, that the bequests and limitations of all the premises limited to his cousin John Harris, and such issue male and female, is upon special consideration, that if John Harris, or his issue, or any of them...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malcolm v Taylor
...rather than to extend the principle, and to rely on the effect of a subsequent limitation in default of " such issue " (King v. BurcheU, Amb., 379 ; 1 Eden, 424; Frank v. Storin, 3 East, 548; [438] Htanhtj v. Lennartl, 1 Ed., 87 ; Due v. IPMter, 1 13. fe Ale]., 713 ;. Doe v. Halle//, 8 T. R......
-
Sandes v Cooke
...UNK 2 L. R. Ir. 49. Hugo v. WilliamsELR L. R. 14 Eq. 224. Webb v. PuckeyENR 5 T. R. 299. Frank v. StovinENR 3 East. 548. King v. BurchellENR Amb. 379. Montgomery v. Montgomery 3 J. & L. 58. Roddy v. Fitzgerald 6 H. L. Cas. 823. Morgan v. ThomasELR 8 Q. B. Div. 575. Whitelaw v. WhitelawUNK 5......
-
Woodhouse v Herrick
...terms to them as tenants in common, and the limitation over was "in default of such issue," and not of issue absolutely. King v. Burchell (Amb. 379) remarked on, and Montgomery v. Montgomery (3 J. & L. 47) explained. In the latter, Lord St. Leonards did not disapprove of the rejection in a ......
-
Shaw v Weigh
...intent of the testator. Upon this ground it has been held to operate as a word of limitation in Roe v. Grew, 2 Wils. 322. King v. Butchall, Amb. 379. 4 Term Rep. 296 n. Doe v. Cottis, ib. 294. Denn v. PucJcey, 5 Term Rep. 299. It has been taken as a word of purchase, not only in Loddington ......