Phillips v Beal
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 July 1863 |
| Date | 11 July 1863 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 10
ROLLS COURT
Followed, Cockayne v. Harrison, 1872, L. R. 13 Eq. 434.
[25] phillips v. beal (No. 1). July 11, 1862. [Followed, Cockayne v. Harrison, 1872, L. R. 13 Eq. 434.] A wine merchant, possessed of a large stock of wine, by his will gave all his household goods, &c., and everything he died possessed of, to his wife for life, and he bequeathed the whole of his effects that might be remaining after her death to his daughter. Held, that the wife took absolutely the wine which the testator had for his private use, but a life interest only in the rest. W. B. Hill, the testator, by his will dated in 1846, bequeathed as follows : - "I give, devise and bequeath all my household goods, furniture, plate, linen, china, glass, together with all bills, bonds, notes of hand, mortgages and everything that I may die possessed of, unto my dear wife Mary Anne Hill for her life," &c., &c., fec. " And from and immediately after the death of my said dear wife, I then give, devise and bequeath the whole of my effects that may be then remaining unto and to the use of Elizabeth Offrida Hill Skinner" (his daughter). The testator was a wine merchant and had a considerable quantity of wine, much of which was in the cellars of his house, the rest in other places. Under the will the widow claimed the wine absolutely. Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Marett, for the widow, contended that the wine, being one of those things which ipso utsu eonsumuntur, must pass to her absolutely; and that any doubt was cleared up by the passage in the will, in which the testator contemplated consumption by speaking of what " might be then remaining." Mr. Follett and Mr. C. Hall, for the daughter, contended that the wine was given with the furniture, &c., to the wife for life, with remainder to the daughter. Moreover, that this was not the common case, as the wine belonged to the testator as his stock-in-trade. Mr. Fooks and Mr. Rowcliffe, for other parties. [26] the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. I am of opinion that the widow is entitled to all the wine in the house, but not to that used for the purpose of trade. Wine is one of the things which ipso usu eonsumuntur, and if the testator was keeping the wine for his own consumption, and not for the purpose of sale, it belongs to the widow. This must be ascertained. note.- Foley v. Burnett, 1 Bro. C. C. 275; Porter v. Tournay, 3 Ves. 311; Bandall v. Russell, 3 Mer. 194; Andrew v. Andrew, 1 Coll...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Purcell and Others v Sheehy
...v. PikeUNK 6 L. R. Ir. 487. Bryant v. Easter-son 5 Jur. (N. S.)166. Cockayne v. HarrisonELR L. R. 13 Eq. 432. Phillips v. BealENR 32 Beav. 25. Grove v. WrightENR 2 K. & J. 347. Dye v. DyeELR 13 Q. B. Div. 147. Darcy v. Croft 9 Ir. Ch. R. 19. Howe v. Lord Dart-mouth 7 Ves. 137. Cockayne v. H......