King and Another v Sherivhs
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 May 1833 |
| Date | 21 May 1833 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 131 E.R. 895
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. in Chancery, 5 Sim. 461.
[238] king and another w. shrives. May 21, 1833. [S. C. in Chancery, 5 Sim. 461.] Testator devised all his goods, chattels, estate, and effects, not otherwise disposed of, to trustees, to pay his debts; remainder to the use of his family.-Lands in his own occupation he devised to the same trustees, to allow his family to occupy till his youngest son came of age, and then to sell and divide the produce among his family. -The personal estate being insufficient for the discharge of the debts, Held, that the trustees were entitled to sell the lands for that purpose. The following case was sent by the Vice Chancellor for the opinion of this Court: -William King being seised of a certain freehold farm and estate in the county of , Bedford, occupied by himself, by his last will and testament, bearing date January 1823, and signed and attested as by law is required to pass freehold estates, gave and bequeathed to his brothers, James King and John King, all his goods, chattels, estate, and effects, of what nature, sort, kind, quantity, or quality soever and wheresoever (not thereby otherwise disposed of), upon trust to and for the uses, intents, and .purposes thereinafter mentioned, viz., first, that all his just debts, funeral expenses, &c. &c., should be fully paid and discharged, and that whatsoever remained, after such discharge, of his personal effects, should be appropriated to the use, interest, and benefit of his family then residing with him, that is to say, his wife Helena and eight sons, conjointly, in such way and manner as should, in the discretion of the executors, appear most proper. Secondly, he willed and appointed that his family, then residing with him as aforesaid, should be placed in the farm, his own estate, and then occupied by him, to occupy and manage it for their mutual advantage, until his youngest son, then about fifteen years old, should arrive at the age of twenty-one years. Yet, nevertheless, under the direction and control of the said executors, who should have the power to interfere in case any difference or misunderstanding should arise between them, to use their best endeavours to reconcile such difference, or rectify such [239] misunderstanding, to secure peace and harmony among them : and if that object could not otherwise be effected, he willed' and desired them to exercise the discretionary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe on the demise of Thomas Evans against David Evans and Others
...did not mean to devise the residue of the term, conceiving that he was bound to leave his heir special occupant. In King v. Shrives (10 Bing. 238), where land was held to pass to trustees by the words "goods, chattels, estate and effects," there was, in another part of the will, a direction......
- King v Shrives