Langley v Sneyd and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 November 1822 |
| Date | 12 November 1822 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 18
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Infant. Descent.
[46] langley v. sneyd and others. Nov. 12, 1822. Infant. Descent. Where an infant died seised of an equitable estate, descended ex parte maternd, his incapacity to call for a conveyance of the legal estate (by which the course of the descent might have been broken), is not a sufficient reason to induce the Court to consider the case as if such a conveyance bad actually been made; it not being, according to the terms of the trust, any part of the express duty of the trustees to execute such a conveyance. The bill prayed that it might be declared that the Plaintiff, as heir ex parte palernd of Thomas Langley the son, who died an infant, was entitled to the equitable interest in certain estates devised and appointed to the said Thomas Langley the son, by the will of his mother Margaret Langley. One of the Defendants claimed these estates as heir ex parte malernd of Thomas Langley, the son. The legal estate was vested in a trustee. By an indenture, dated 14th October 1786, made between Edward Walburn Okeover and Margaret his wife, of the one part, and John Sneyd of the other part; after reciting that, by certain indentures of lease and release, dated the 12th and 13th February 1777, in consideration of the marriage then about to take place between the said E. W. Okeover and Margaret his wife (then Margaret Bowyer, spinster), part of the estates in question in this cause, of which William Bowyer, the father of the said Margaret Bowyer, was then seised in fee, were conveyed to Thomas Ley and John Goodwin, their heirs and assigns, to the use of the said William Bowyer for life ; remainder to the use of trustees to preserve contingent remainders; remainder to the use of the said E. W. Okeover for life; remainder to the use of trustees, to preserve contingent remainders ; remainder to the use of the said Margaret Okeover for life; remainder to the use of trustees to preserve contingent remainders; remainder to other trustees for a term of five hundred years, on trust, to raise portions for the younger children of the marriage; remainder to the use of the first and other [46] sons of the marriage, in tail; remainder to the use of the daughters of the marriage, as tenants in common in tail; with reversion to the use of the right heirs of William Bowyer for ever; and also reciting that the said William Bowyer had died on the 3d October 1780, having made his will, whereby he devised (subject to certain charges), all his estates and hereditaments (not settled by the said indentures of the 12th and 13th February 1777), to trustees and their heirs, to the use of his wife Christiana Bowyer, for her life, in lieu of dower; remainder to E. W. Okeover for life; remainder to trustees to preserve contingent remainders; remainder to Margaret Okeover for life; remainder to trustees to preserve contingent remainders ; remainder (suhject to a charge for daughters and younger children), to the first and other sons of E. W. Okeover and Margaret his wife in tail; remainder to the daughters of the said E. W. Okeover and Margaret his wife, as tenants in common in tail; with 1 8IM. & ST. 47. LANGLEY V. SNEYD 19 remainder to Margaret Okeover, her heirs and assigns for ever; and also reciting that the marriage between E. W. Okeover and Margaret his wife had been duly solemnized; and that Christiana Bowyer was then living, and that there was no issue oi the marriage ; and that it had been agreed that the reversion and remainder in fee-simple in all the estates expectant on the determination of the estates for life of Christiana Bowyer, and E. W. Okeover and Margaret his wife, and in default of issue of their bodies, should be settled in the manner therein mentioned. It was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Selby v Alston
...parte materna also : if he takes by descent, he would only take an estate descendible to his heirs ex parte materna (Langley v. Sneyd, 1 Sim. & Stu. 45); and yet, if he can take by descent, the law makes him take so. The case of an escheat does seem a hardship upon the line of heirs, that w......