Northey v Northey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 November 1740 |
| Date | 10 November 1740 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 447
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
[74] Case 72.-crop versus norton, and norton versus norton, November 8, 1740. [S. C. 9 Mod. 233. Commented on, Wray v. Steele, 1814, 2 V. & B. 389.] S. C. Barn. Cha. Rep. 179.-B. N. the last life in a bishop's lease, agrees with C. N. to surrender this lease on a promise of the bishop to grant a new one for three lives, viz. for B. N.'s life, C. N.'s life, and the son of C. N., and in consideration of B. N.' surrendering the old lease, it was agreed the new one shcfald be in trust for the infant son of C. N. The whole purchase-money was paid by C. N. to the bishop, but the legal estate was granted in the new lease to B. N. and his heirs during his own life and the lives of C. N. and his son. C. N. after the death of B. N. took upon him to dispose of it. B. N. by a deed-poll dated the day after the lease, declares his intention to be, that C. N. and his son should after his decease hold to them and their heirs during the remainder of the term. Lord Hardwicke held B. N. had a valuable share in the consideration of the new lease, having given up his interest in the old, and that having a right to declare the trust, C. N. had his life only in the lease. Old Richard Norton of Southwick in Hampshire, the last life in a lease under the bishop of Winchester, agrees with colonel Norton to surrender the old lease upon the bishop's promising to grant a new lease for three lives, for old Norton's life, for colonel Norton's life, and the son of colonel Norton, an infant of tender years ; at the time there was a private agreement between old Norton and colonel Norton, that in consideration of his surrendering the old lease, the new one should be in trust, for the infant son of colonel Norton. Colonel Norton paid the whole money to the amount of 1500 to the bishop of Winchester for renewal, but the legal estate in the new lease was notwithstanding granted to old Norton and his heirs during his own life and the lives of colonel Norton and his son : colonel Norton after the death of old Norton, imagining he had the whole property in the lease, took upon him to dispose of it. The original bill was brought by Mr. Crop, the purchaser from colonel Norton, for performance of articles, and the cross-bill by the son of colonel Norton, to have a deed-poll that had been executed by old Norton, which declares the trust of the new lease, and was found in his custody at his death, produced by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grant v Grant
...her by the Defendant. Mr. Hobhouse and Mr. W. W. Karslake, for the [624] Plaintiff, cited Lucas v. Lucas (1 Atk. 270); Northey v. Nwthey (2 Atk. 77); Graham v. Lomlonderry (3 Atk. 393); Mews v. Mews (15 Beav. 529) ; Tipping v. Tipping (1 Peere, W. 729); Jervoise v. Jervoise (17 Beav. 566). ......
-
Jervoise v Jervoise
...the coverture, and she was in the habit of wearing them ever after. They are therefore her own separate property; Northey v. Northey (2 Atk. 77; 9 Mod. 270); and the custody or possession of them by the husband does not alter the rights of the wife if she has worn them as ornaments on all u......
-
Taylor v Jones
...estate, the whole vests in the executor ; and therefore no legacy can come out of the executor without his consent (Northey v. Northey, 2 Atk. 77); and, according to the definition of the civil law, it is a command or direction to the executor what he shall do with such parts of his estate.......