Newbolt v Pryce
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 December 1844 |
| Date | 13 December 1844 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 60 E.R. 395
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 8 Jur. 1112. See Gillett v. Gane, 1870, L. R. 10 Eq. 33.
Mistake. Misdescription of Legatee. Will. Construction.
[354] newbolt y. phyce. Dec. 13, 1844. [S. C. 8 Jur. 1112. See Gillett v. Gane, 1870, L. E. 10 Eq. 33.] Mistake. Misdescription of Legatee. Will. Construction. Bequest to John Newbolt, second son of William Strangways Newbolt, Vicar of Somerfcon. The Vicar of Somerton was William Eobert Newbolt. His second son was Henry Eobert, and his third son John Pryce. Held, that John Pryce Newbolfc was entitled to the legacy. Bridget Newbolt, widow, being possessed of 2800 consols, by her will, dated in 1837, bequeathed as follows :-"Tomy nephew, John Newbolt, second son of the Eev. William Strangways Newbolt, Vicar of Somerton, Somerset, I leave all my funded property in the three per cents, which I may die possessed of." The testatrix died in 1843. It appeared from the Master's report made in obedience to the decree at the hearing of the cause, that the name of the Vicar of Somerton was William Eobert Newbolt; that he was inducted into the vicarage in 1833; that no other person of the name of Newbolt had been either vicar or curate of the parish for fifty years prior to the date of the will; that William Robert Newbolt was the brother of the testatrix's late husband, John Newbolt, under whose will she became entitled to the 2800 consols; .and that W. E. Newbolt had three sons living at the date of the will, of whom George Digby Newbolt was the eldest, Eobert Henry Newbolt the second, and John Pryce Newbolt the third. [355] At the hearing for further directions, the questions were, first, whether John Pryce Newbolt (who was the Plaintiff in the suit) was entitled to the consols; second, whether Eobert Henry Newbolt was entitled to them; and, third, whether the bequest was void for uncertainty. Mr. Bethell and Mr. Selwyn, for the Plaintiff, relied on the maxim, " veritas nominis toltit errorem descriptionis; " and cited Doe v. Histocks (5 Mees. & Wels. 363), and Doe v. Huthwaite (3 Barn. & Aid. 632). Mr. Stuart, for Eobert Henry Newbolt. The Plaintiff's baptismal name is not John but John Pryce, consequently there is no veritas nominis with regard to him. The description applies correctly to my client. The testatrix has mistaken the baptismal name of the father, but is correct in her description of him. In Doe v. Huthivaite the following passage in Co. Litt. 3 a. was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mostyn (Thomas) v Mostyn (Robert John)
...but his intention was clear, and by name or description he furnished the means of ascertaining it. That was the case in Newbolt v. Pryce (14 Sim. 354). In this case it is otherwise. Here there is no patent ambiguity on the face of the Will, and the evidence shows that the testatrix was not ......
-
Re Gregory's Settlement and Will
...C. (Exch.) 72); [602] Jarman on Wills (vol. 1, pp. 407, 408 (3d edit.)); Doe d. Hiscocks v. Hiscocks (5 Mee. & W. 363); Newbolt v. Pryce (14 Sim. 354); Garner v. Garner (29 Beav. 114), were cited. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. I think the evidence is admissible, and that it is......
-
Waldron v Jacob and Millie
...v. Coghlan (6) ; Holmes v. Custance (7); Standen v. Standen (8) ; Lord Camoys v. Blundell (9). (1) 3 Br. C. C. 446. (2) 10 Hare, 345. (3) 14 Sim. 354. (4) 3 B. & Ald. 632. (5) 5 M. & W. 369. (6) 12 Sim. 507. (7) 12 Ves. 279. (8) 2 Ves. Jun. 589. (9) 1 H. L. C. 778. ...
-
Re Noble's Trusts and The 11 & 12 Vict. C. 68
...TRUSTS AND THE 11 & 12 VICT. C. 68. Delmare v. Rebello 3 Br. C. C. 446. Bernasconi v. AtkinsonENR 10 Hare, 345. Pryce v. NewboltENR 14 Sim. 354. Chevalier v. HuthwaiteENR 3 B. & Ald. 632. Hiscocks v. HiscocksENR 5 M. & W. 369. Daubeny v. CoghlanENR 12 Sim. 507. Holmes v. Custance 12 Ves. 27......