Mackdowell & Ux' v Halfpenny
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1704 |
| Date | 01 January 1704 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 23 E.R. 911
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Case 439.-mackdowell & Ux' versus halfpenny. [1704.] [1] Eq. Ca. Ab. 307, pi. 9, S. Q A. devises his estate to B. his son charged with 500 to his granddaughter, the daughter of B. payable at 21 or marriage.-B. marries his daughter and gives her 1500 portion, but no notice is taken of the 500 legacy, nor any release given.-Twenty-one years afterwards, the daughter and her second husband bring a bill against the father for the 500. Bill dismissed. The 1500 shall be presumed a satisfaction of the 500, especially after such a length of time. Thomas Halfpenny, the grandfather, devised his real and personal estate to his eldest son, the defendant, charged with several legacies to his grandchildren, and (inter alia) with 500 to the plaintiff, payable at [485] twenty-one or marriage; in 1684 the grandfather died. In 1685, within a year after the death of the grandfather, the defendant married his daughter to Mr. Palmer, her first husband, and gave her 1500 as her marriage-portion; but no mention was made of the 500 legacy, or any release or discharge taken for it; and now after twenty-one years...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henrietta Hanbury and Frances Hanbury only Daughters of Capel Hanbury Esq. deceased, Plaintiffs; Jane Hanbury, Widow and Administratrix to John Hanbury Esq. deceased, John Capel Hanbury an Infant, the eldest Son and Heir of the said John Hanbury by said Jane Hanbury his Mother and Guardian, and Henry Dagge Esq., Defendants
...and those cases were relied upon where the fortunes come from the same person. But Copley v. Copley, Wood v. Briant. The case, 2 Vern. 484, the Duke of [359] Somerset v. the Duchess of Somerset, are all cases where the portions came from other persons. In the present case, all came from Cap......
-
Plunkett v Lewis
...was not satisfied, either by the settlement or by advancement, were the following:- Chidley v. Lee (Pre. Cha. 228), M'Dowall v. Halfpenny (2 Vern. 484), Prime [321] v. Stebbing (2 Ves. 409), Clark v. Sewell (3 Atk. 98), Barclay v. WainwrigU (3 Ves. 466), Tolson v. Collins (4 Ves. 483), Ex p......
-
Cox against St. Albans
...853. Ante, 63. Post, 273. 2 Inst. 230. 1 Vent. 88. Vaugh. 405. Raym. 189. 1 Sid. 151. 2 Mod. 272. 9 Mod. 95. 10 Mod. 166. Fitzg. 82, 314. '2 Vern. 484. 1 Peer. Wins. 43, 476. 2 Ld. Eay. 885. 1 Salk. 202. 2 Com. Dig. "Courts" (p. 15). Cowp. 166. Dougl. 378. 1 Term Rep. 552. 3 Term Rep. 315. ......
-
Hall against Clarke
...853. Ante, 63. Post, 273. 2 Inst. 230. 1 Vent. 88. Vaugh. 405. Raym. 189. 1 Sid. 151. 2 Mod. 272. 9 Mod. 95. 10 Mod. 166. Fitzg. 82, 314. '2 Vern. 484. 1 Peer. Wins. 43, 476. 2 Ld. Eay. 885. 1 Salk. 202. 2 Com. Dig. "Courts" (p. 15). Cowp. 166. Dougl. 378. 1 Term Rep. 552. 3 Term Rep. 315. ......