Loddington v Kime
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 198
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER.
Mich. 6 W. & M. C. B. Intr. Trin. 5 W. & M. Rot. 1551. 1 Ld. Raym. 203, S. C.
See S. C. 1 Ld. Raym. 203 (with note).
[224] devise. 1. loddington versus kime. [Mich. 6 W. & M. C. B. Intr. Trin. 5 W. & M. Eot. 1551. 1 Ld. Eaym. 203, S. C.j [See S. C. 1 Ld. Eaym. 203 (with note).] 3 Lev. 431, S. C. Devise to A. for life, and if he have issue male, then to such issue male and his heirs, and if he die without issue male, to B. and his heirs. A. has but an estate for life, and both remainders are contingent. 1 Co. 66 b. 4 Mod. 282. 3 Lev. 408, 434. 2 Danv. 419. 3 D. 183, p. 24, S. C. Eq. Ab, 182, p. 23. Fee simple with a double aspect. Post, 229. 8 Co. 79 a. Qucere, the case of Doe, of the demise of Brown v. Holmes and Longmire in C. B. Mich. 12 Geo. 3, the like case with this, was determined, viz. that A. took an estate for life, and that) the common recovery barred the remainder over to B. which was held to be a contingent remainder; the first limitation being a contingent remainder in fee to the issue male of A.-Note to the 5th Edition. Vi. 2 Bl. 777. 3 Lev. 22, 264. 1 Lev. 11, 25, 135. 1 Sid. 47. Eay. 30. 1 Keb. 29, 119. 1 Mod. 114. In replevin a special verdict was found, viz. that Sir Michael Armin being seised in fee, devised a rent-charge, and then devises the land to A. for life, without impeachment of waste: and in case he have any issue male, then to such issue male and his heirs for ever; and if he die without issue male, then to B. and his heirs for ever. A. entered and suffered a common recovery, and died without issue. 1st question was, whether A. was tenant in tail by this devise ? Powell held the express estate for life not destroyed by the implication that arose on the latter words following, so that A. was only tenant for life, and the rather, because these words, viz. impeachment of waste, and for life, must iu that case be rejected, quod Treby, C.J. concessit (a). 2dly, The Court held, that issue was to be taken here as nomien singulare, because the inheritance was annexed arid limited to the word issue; so that the inheritance was in the issue, and not in A. the father (b). 3dly, That this limitation to the issue was not an executory devise, being after a freehold, but a contingent remainder (c), so that a posthumous son could never take (d). 4thly, That the remainder limited to the issue of A. was a contingent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Monypenny v Dering
...cited and commented upon the following authorities,-Stanley v. Lennard (1 Eden, 87), Seaward v. Willock (5 East, 198), Loddington v. Kime (1 Salk. 224, 1 Lord Eaym. 203, 3 Lev. 431), Carter v. Barnardiston (3 Bro. P. C. 64), Doe d. Cock v. Cooper (1 East, 229), Doe d. Wright v. Jesson (5 M.......
-
Purefoy v Rogers and Others
...This rule, so laid down by Lord Hale, has been uniformly adhered to ever since. 4 Mod. 284, Reeve v. Long. Skin. 431. Garth. 310, S. C. 1 Salk. 224, Loddinglon v. Kime. 1 Ld. Raym. 208, S. C. 2 Ves. 616, Southby v. Stonehouse. Com. Rep. 372, Walter v. Drew. 2 P. Will. 32, Gore v. Gore. Doug......
-
Lees v Mosley and Another
...as purchasers as tenants in common in fee The fee spuing up from the limitation over In this case Lord Kenyon relied on Loddmgtou v Ktine (1 Salk. 224), in which the devise was to A. for life, with a limitation to his issue male and their heirs for ever, and no limitation over upon a failur......
-
Neville v Thacker
...v. BennettENR 2 Dr. & Sm. 266. Forsbrook v. ForsbrookELR L. R. 3 Ch. 93. Parfitt v. HemberELR L. R. 4 Eq. 443. Loddington v. KimeENR 1 Salk. 224; Lord Raym. 203. Re O'Beirne 7 Ir. Eq. R. 171. Upton v. Hardman Ir. R. 9 Eq. 157. Lewis v. PuxleyENR 16 M. & W. 733. Key v. Key 4 D. M. & G. 73. S......