Long v Short
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1717 |
| Date | 01 January 1717 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 24 E.R. 445
LORD CHANCELLOR COWPER.
Considered and explained, In re Saunders-Davies, 1887, 34 Ch. D. 482. Considered, In re Bawden, [1894] 1 Ch. 693. Discussed, Jackson v. Hamilton, 1846, 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 438. Referred to, Ker v. Ker, 1869, Ir. R. 4 eq. 29.
IP. WMS. 403. LONG V, SHORT 445 [403] Case 110.-long versus shoet.(!) [1717.] [Considered and explained, In re Saunders-Davies, 1887, 34 Ch. D. 482. Considered, In re Bawden, [1894] 1 Ch. 693. Discussed, Jackson v. Hamilton, 1846, 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 438. Referred to, Ker v. Ker, 1869, Ir. R. 4 Eq. 29.] Lord Chancellor Cowper. 2 Vern. 756 ; 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 114, pi. 7; 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 223, pi. 4. One seised in fee of some lands, and possessed by lease for years of other lands, devises the fee to A. and the lease to B. and dies indebted by bond. On a deficiency of assets, both the devisees shall contribute to'the payment of the bond; but if the devise to A. had been of all the rest of his estate, then A. should have paid the debts. One seised in fee of some lands, and possessed of a lease for years in other lands, and being indebted by specialty and simple contract, made his will, by which he devised a rent-charge of £40 a-year out of the lease for years to one grandson, bequeathed the lease itself to another grandson, and likewise devised all his lands in fee to A. and his heirs. None of his devisees wereC his heirs at law, and his will was made since the statute against fraudulent devises (3 & 4 Gul. & Mar. c. 14). And there being a deficiency of assets to pay debts, the question was, whether they should be charged on the real, or leasehold estate ? Decreed by Lord Chancellor, 1st, That a devise of a rent-charge out of a term, is as much a specifick devise, as if it had been of the term itself. Idly, That the devise of a term for years is as much a specifick devise, as a devise of lands in fee. Wherefore, each being equally specifick devises, it would, in this case, be an equal disappointment of the testator's intent, to defeat either, by subjecting it to the testator's debts. 2 dly, That since the statute of fraudulent devises, lands in fee are equally subject to debts by specialty in the hands of the devisee, as leases in the hands of the executor or legatees are to debts by simple contract at common law. [4041 So that to prevent the disappointment of the testator's intent, the Court thought it reasonable, that the devisee of the fee-simple estate, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dady v Hartridge
...specific, the estates specifically devised and the residue must contribute rateably. The following cases were cited :-Long v. Short (1 P. Wms. 403); Hariby v. Roberts (Ambl. 127); Haslewood v. Pope (3 P. Wms. 322); Silk v. Prime (1 Dick. 384; S. C. 1 Bro. C. C. 138, n.); Bench v. Byks (4 Ma......
-
Handcock v Handcock
...61; S. C. on appeal, L1. & G. temp. Plunk. 208. Averall v. Wade L1. & G. temp. Sug. 252. Vide supra, pp. 474, 475. Long v. ShortENRENR 1 P. Wms. 403; S. C. 2 Vern. 756. Eyre v. GreerENR 2 Coll., C. C. 527. Cook v. ArundelENR Hard. 87. Webber v. SmithENR 2 Vern. 103. Sir William Harbert's ca......
-
Mirehouse v Scaife
...& Keen, 600. See also Braithwaite v. Britain, 1 Keen, 20G ; Palmer v. Graves, 1 Keen, 545 ; and Nj/ssen v. Gretlon, 2 Y. & Coll. 222. (2) 1 P. Wms. 403. See on this point Haskuvott v. Pope, 3 P. Wms. 322, and Fair ester v. Lord Leigh, Amb. 171. (3) 6 Mad. 33. And see Warren v. Dames, 2 Myln......
-
Harris v Watkins
...leaseholds specifically bequeathed, for these are for this purpose in the same position as specifically devised freeholds: Long v. Short (1 P. Wms. 403), Tombs v. Boch (2 Coll. C. C. 490). . the VICE-CHANCELLOR reserved his judgment. March 21. the vice-chancellob Sir W. page wood. The point......