May v Roper
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 June 1831 |
| Date | 24 June 1831 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 58 E.R. 135
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Franks v. Bollans, 1867, 37 L. J. Ch. 158; Miller v. Collins [1896], 1 Ch. 592.
Feme Coverte. Fine.
4 SOU. 360. MAY V. ROPER 185 [360] may v. eoper. June 24, 1831. [See Franks y. Bollans, 1867, 37 L. J. Ch. 158; Miller v. Collins [1896], 1 Ch. 592.] Feme Cmerte. Fine. A married lady being entitled to a share of the proceeds of real estates directed to be sold, joined with her husband in assigning and levying a fine of her share to a mortgagee. Held, that she was barred of her equity to a settlement. Robert Roper, by his will, dated the 5th of October 1807, gave a messuage and other hereditaments called Ivory's, to his wife, Sarah, in fee ; and he devised all his other real estates to his executor and executrix thereinafter named, in trust to sell, and, out of the proceeds of the sale, and out of the produce of his personal estate, to invest 2000 on good security, and to pay the interest thereof to his wife for her life, and to invest, in like manner, all the rest of the monies to arise from the sale of hia real and personal estates until the eldest of his children by his wife should attain 21, or until one of them should marry with his wife's'consent; and, in the meantime, to apply the interest to arise therefrom for the maintenance and education of his children ; and, when any of his children should attain 21 or marry with such consent, then he directed his trustees to divide all the principal monies into such a number of equal shares as should be equal to the number of his children who should be then living; and he gave one of such shares to be then paid to such one of his children as should then have attained 21, or should marry with such consent, and the remaining shares he directed should be continued out at interest as aforesaid during the respective minorities of the remaining survivors of his said children, and he gave the said remaining shares unto the said remaining survivors of his said children, to be paid to them as and when they should respectively attain 21, or marry with consent; and, immediately after the decease of his wife, be directed his executor and executrix to call in the 2000, and to apply it in [361] such manner and proportions as thereinbefore directed touching the residue of the said principal monies; and he appointed his wile and Wilb'am Webb executor and executrix of his will. The testator died in July 1808, leaving his wife and Robert Roper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murrell v Goodyear
...there was that a stranger paid off the debts. It was quite clear that, by a fine, a married woman could make a title to land; May v. Roper (4 Sim. 360); Tuer v. Turner (20 Beav. 560). [Barrow v. Barrow (4 K. & J. 409), Stamton v. Tattersall (1 S. & G. 529), were also cited.] the vice-chance......
-
Briggs v Chamberlain
...Knight Bruce is reported to have come to a different conclusion. This decision directly conflicts with the case of May v. Eoper (4 Sim. 360). I cannot distinguish the two cases. A difference suggested is, that in one case the interest was reversionary; but the question does not turn on the ......
-
Duberley v Day
...(6 Sim. 420), Mousey v. Parker (2 Myl. & K. 181). Mr. Shapter, for other parties, cited 8 & 9 Viet. c. 106, s. 6 ; May v. Roper (4 Sim. 360). [38] Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Toller, in support of the Master's report. First, a possibility belonging to a wife, which cannot fall into possession during ......
-
Williams v Cooke
...her by the will. Hence the interest of Mrs. Cooke in the land was a security in the hands of the bankers for their debt. [May v. Roper (4 Sim. 360), Sriggs v. Chamlerlain (11 Hare, 69), Barrow v. Barrow (4 K. & J. 409), Ooodrick v. Shotboli (Free, in Chan. 333), Ex parte Baine (2 M. D. & De......