Pawlet & Ux' v Dogget
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 October 1688 |
| Date | 31 October 1688 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 23 E.R. 665
IN COURT, MASTER OF THE ROLLS.
[86] Case 83.-pawlet & Ux' versus dogget. Mercurii, 31 Oct. [16881 In Court, Master of the Rolls. Devise of 1300 to testator's grand-daughter, provided if she died before 21, and without issue, then the legacy should go over to A. Decreed the devise over in case of the grand-daughter's dying without issue, under 21, is good, the contingency being to happen before the legatee attains 21. J. S. by his will, devises 1300 to the plaintiff's now wife (his grandchild), provided that if she died before twenty-one without issue, then he willed that the said legacy of 1300 should go over to A. (the words are, " To be paid her with the increase thereof " at her age of 21, or three months after; and if she died without issue before that time then to S. D." R. L.), and provided if she married before twenty-one without the consent of her grandmother, that the said legacy of 1300 should go over to the now plaintiff Pawlet. The now plaintiff married the legatee his now wife before she was twenty-one years of age, and that not only without the consent, but to the express dislike of the grandmother, who endeavoured all she could to prevent their intermarriage ; and the now plaintiffs apprehending that the forfeiture, if any, was to the plaintiff, the husband and wife exhibited their bill (the wife not being yet twenty-one years of age, and not having any issue) against the executor, and against A. to whom the legacy was limited over, in case the wife died before twenty-one without issue, to have the said legacy of 1300 paid unto them. 666 PAWLET V. DOGGET 2 VEEN. 87. The defendants by answer confessed the will, and prayed the judgment of the court, whether the plaintiff, his wife not being as yet twenty-one years of age, and not having issue, was entitled to the legacy, the same, in case the plaintiff's wife died before twenty-one without issue, being by the will limited to the defendant A. For the plaintiff it was insisted that the limitation over to A. in case the plaintiff's wife died without issue before her age of twenty-one years, was an implicit estate-tail in her, which [87] gave her the entire property in this pecuniary legacy, and that therefore the limitation over was void; and also that the proviso of forfeiture upon her marrying without the consent of her grandmother, though placed in the will after the other proviso, yet was first in point of construction ; for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sarah Deacon, March 26, 1746, Executrix of the Will of Joseph Smith deceased, Son and Heir of Joseph Smith, his late Father deceased, by Martha his first wife, Plaintiff; Eleanor Smith Widow of Joseph Smith, the Father, and five of his Children, Defendants
...her sister. The husband, and the two children, bring the bill for the legacies. Mr. Brown, for the plaintiffs, cited Powlet versus Dogget, 2 Vern. 86. Miller versus Warren, id. 207. Jackson versus Farrand, id. 424. Bruen versus Bruen, 2 Vern. 439. Pitfield's case, 2 Will. 513, and Lowther v......
-
Stephens v Stephens
...tends to create a Perpetuity. This Executory Devise is to arise within the proper Time prescribed by Law. 2 Vern. 151, Martin versus Long. 2 Vern. 86, 87, Paulet versus Dogget; 3 Leon. 65. Hind and Lyon, 1 Salk. 229. 1 Vern. 304, Massenbury versus Ash. 2 Chan. Rep. 202, in le Case. This las......
-
Goulbourn v Brooks
...Teriy (4 Sim. 294). When a legacy is charged upon an estate as a portion for a child, and the child dies before (a) See Paulet v. Doggett, 2 Vern. 86. SY.ftf.EEMk GOULBOURN V. BROOKS 511 the tiaie of payment, the general rule is that the estate is relieved from the portion. But the reason f......
-
Attorney General v Hall
...but as to his Personalty, they were to vest a Property only ; and then the Question will be, whether this Limitation over will be good. 2 Vern. 86, 195. Tho' there is a Real Estate devised by his Will as well as a Personal Estate, and the same Words pass both Estates, yet such a Contingency......