Monnington and Davis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1748 |
| Date | 01 January 1748 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 92 E.R. 827
COURTS OF WESTMINSTER-HALL
[224] de tbrm. sangt. hill. 7 guliblmi III. in the common bench. MONNINGTON AND DAVIS. Resolution of the Court. An attempt to construe a will of lands containing clauses which seem to be repugnant. Blencow J. This is a special verdict, the jury finds that B. M. was seised in fee and made his will, and devises the lands in the declaration, which lie, as he says, in four particular vills, to his wife for life in full of dower ; then to E. his eldest son, his heirs and assigns for ever; and then disposes of several leases (which don't appear what they are in particular, either for life or years,) and then be goes on and says, all the rest of my freehold lands and tenements I give to my son and his heirs for ever; then as to his copyhold lands, he says what is become of them ; if my son and daughter, says he, die before twenty-one, and leave no heirs of their 828 IN THE COMMON PLEAS FOBTBSCUB, 225. bodies, then all my freehold lands not disposed of hereby, nor settled by such a deed, I give to my wife and her heirs for ever. The jury finds the death of the testator, the death of the wife and the death of the son and daughter without issue before twenty-one. So that the question is between the heirs of the wife and the heirs of the son and daughter; then jury finds that the lands devised by the first clause, are the same with the lands deviaed in the last clause, which is a contradiction, and ill finding. So that here are several parcels of land; first, To my wife for life, and then to my eldest son arid his heirs for ever; second clause is, All the rest of my freehold lands I give to my son and his heirs for ever; third clause ia as to another parcel, If my son and daughter die, as before, [225] then all my freehold lands not hereby disposed nor settled, shall go to my wife in fee; none of the lands in question are those in the deed. I am of opinion this reversion shall go to the heir at law, and that it is no executory devise to the wife and her heirs. It is insisted, that this latter clause shall qualify the first, but I think riot; 'tis more natural to refer it to the second clause in the will than to the first, because the wife in the second clause has the lands on a contingency, and in the first she has them absolutely for life; that the lands in the declaration should be the same with those in the first and second clause is impossible; and the jury have not found...
To continue reading
Request your trial