Perrin and Another, v Blake, Widow
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 February 1770 |
| Date | 08 February 1770 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 98 E.R. 355
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
See Doug. 329, 330. 4 Durn. 16.
Referred to, Mandeville v. Carrick, 1795, 3 Ridg's. P. C. 369; Doe d Allen v. Small, 1800, 8 T. R. 504; Poole v. Poole, 1804, 3 Bos. & P. 628. Discussed, Montgomery v. Montgomery, 1845, 3 Jo. & Lat. 51. Not applied, Phillips v. Phillips, 1847.
[2579] pebbin and another, versus blake, Widow. (S. C. 1 Bl. 672.) Thursday, 8th Feb. 1770. Whether the testator's manifest intent must not controul the legal operation of the word heirs, as a limitation and turn it into the description of a purchaser remained undecided, and was depending in the House of Lords, May 1776. [See Doug. 329, 330. 4 Durn. 16.] [Referred to, Mandeville v. Carrick, 1795, 3 Eidg's. P. C. 369 ; Doe d. Allen v. Small, 1800, 8 T. R. 504 ; Poole v. Poole, 1804, 3 Bos. & P. 628. Discussed, Montgomery v. Montgomery, 1845, 3 Jo. & Lat. 51. Not applied, Phillips v. Phillips, 1847, * Vide ante, p. 2576. 356 PERRIN V. BLAKE 4 BUBR. SMO. 10 Ir. Eq. R. 519. Considered, In re Johnsm'a Trusts, 1866, L. R. 2 Eq. 720. Referred to, Peddie v. Hunt, 1889, 18 Q. B. D. 572; Evans v. Evans [1892], 2 Ch. 188; Fan Grutten v. Foxwell [1897], A. C. 674.] Thia was a demurrer to a replication, in an action of trespass : and the question was " whether John Williams took an estate for life, or an estate tail, under his father's will." The testator, William Williams, at the time when he made his will, had only this one son John, and two daughters : but he thought his wife to be then with child. However, there never was any other child : and one of the daughters was since dead, without issue. One clause of the father's will says-" Provided that should my wife be ensient with child, and it be a female, I give her 2000. And if a male, I give my estate, real and personal, equally to be divided between said infant and my son John, when said infant shall attain his age of twenty-one years." In another clause of it, the testator declares it to be his intent " that none of his children shall sell his estate for longer than his life:" and to that intent, he gives all his estate to his said son John and said infant for their lives; remainder to trustees, to preserve contingent remainders, &c.; remainder to the heirs of the bodies of his said sons ; remainder to his daughters, for their lives ; remainder to trustees, &c.; remainder to the heirs of the bodies of his daughters ; and that the share and part of his said daughters, if either of them should die, should immediately vest in the heirs of their bodies. The defendant claimed under the remainder to the daughters; John being dead. The plaintiff stated in his replication, "that John before his death, entered, and suffered a recovery, to the use of himself in fee ; and afterwards demised to the plaintiff, for a term of years :" under which demise, the plaintiff derives his title. The defendant insists that this is a bad title; because John took only an estate for life, and therefore could not suffer a recovery. No doubt was made of the rule in Shelly's case, in Coke Littleton and other books,* " that when the ancestor, by any gift, devise or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v Adams
...352; 1 Scriven on Copyholds (4th edit.), 72, and Sugden on Real Property Statutes, 261. Mr. Lee, in reply, referred to Pen-in v. Blake (4 Burr. 2579). [In the course of the argument the Lords Justices referred to Bacon's Abridgment, title "Bargain and Sale (E.)," p. 471, where it is aaid,-"......
-
Coape v Arnold Arnold v Coape
...2 Atk. 246, 570, 577), Wright v. Pearson (Amb. 358), Else v. Osborn (1 P. Wms. 387), Garth v. Baldwin (2 Ves. sen. 646), Pen-in v. Slake (4 Burr. 2579; S. C. 1 W. Bla. 672), Ooulson v. Ooulson (2 Stra. 1125), Austen v. Taylor (Ambl. 376), Jmes v. Morgan (1 B. C. C. 206), Jerwise v. Duke of ......
-
Haddelsey v Adams
...were also cited : Stringer v. Phillips (1 Eq. Ca. Abr, 292); Halves v. Hawes (1 Wils. 165); Hurgix v. Burgis (1 Mod. 115); Perrinv. Blake (4 Burr. 2579); Porter v. Bradley (3 T. R. 143); Doe d. Blake v. Luzton (6 T. R. 289); Blagraw v. Blagrave (1 De G. & Sm. 252) ; Rabbeth v. Squire (19 Be......
-
Arnold v Coape
...of the testator. It must be borne in mind that the rule in Shelley's case, to borrow the language of Lord Mansfield (Perrin v. Blake, 4 Burr. 2579; Preston on Estates, 272; 1 Collectanea Juridica, 320), "is not a general proposition subject to no control, where the intention is on the other......