Pickersgill v Grey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 January 1862 |
| Date | 14 January 1862 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 54 E.R. 925
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 31 L. J. Ch. 394; 5 L. T. 706; 8 Jur. (N. S.) 632; 10 W. R. 207.
[352] PrCKERH ;iLL -a. grey. Dec. 19, 1861 ; Jan. 14, 1862. [S. C. 31 L. J. Ch. 394; 5 L. T. 706 ; H Jur. (N. S.) 632; 10 W. B. 207.] Quasi contingent remainders of copyhold hereditaments held protected from destruction by the estate of the lord. Estates pur autre me were devised to A. for life, with an ultimate limitation to A., subject to some intervening contingent limitations to other persons. Held, that A. could not destroy the intermediate contingent interests. The testator John Eockcliffe Wayne was, at the date of his will and death, seised of certain freehold hereditaments in fee, and he was also seised in fee, according to the custom, of some copyholds, and be was absolutely entitled to some leaseholds for lives held under the Archbishop of York. By his will, dated in 1838, he devised all this property to his brother Thomas Wayne for life, with remainder to such child or children as he should appoint by deed or will, and, in the event of his dying without any child surviving him, then to his sister Ann Barker for her life, and, after the decease of the survivor of Thomas Wayne and Ann Barker, to trustees and their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, in trust for the first and other sons of Mary Pickeragill in tail male, with divers remainders over, with an ultimate limitation to the testator's own right heirs. The peculiarity of this will, which raised the questions in the cause, was that it contained no devise of any estate to trustees to support contingent remainders after the life-estate given to the testator's brother Thomas Wayne, besides which it contained no devise to the children of Thomas Wayne in default of his making any appointment in their favor. The testator died in June 1842. Thomas Wayne, his brother and heir at law, survived him, and on the 23d of May 1843 he executed a statu-[353]-tory release (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74), by which he purported to resettle all the devised estates, discharged from the limitations of the will, by conveying them to a trustee to the use of himself Thomas Wayne for life, with remainder to Ann Barker for life, and after her decease to certain uses in favor of his issue (which failed), and, for default of such issue, to the use of such persons as Ann Barker should, by deed or will, appoint, and, in default, to other persons. Thomas Wayne was admitted to the copyholds in 1844, to hold the same during his life, according to the true intent of the will of the testator. He died a bachelor in 1850, and Ann Barker thereupon entered into possession ; she died in 1860, having devised and appointed all the property to the first three Defendants, to the exclusion of the sons of Mary Pickersgill. By this suit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brenan v Boyne
...Ubi supra. Holliday v. OvertonENRENR 14 Beav. 467; 15 Beav. 480. Hegarty v. NallyIR 13 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 532. Pickersgill v. GreyENR 30 Beav. 352. Low v. Burron 3 P. W. 262. M'Clintock v. Irvine 10 Ir. Chan. Rep. 485. The Duke of Devonshire v. KintonENR 2 Vern. 719. Kerr v. Cassidy 1 Hud. &......
-
Morris v Morris
...S. 213. Brennan v. BoyneUNK 16 I. C. L. r. 87. Slade v. Patteson 5 L. J. C. 51. Doe v. RobinsonENR 8 B. & C. 296. Pickersgill v. GreyENR 30 Beav. 352. Keegan v. Mowlds 8 Ir. Jur. N. S. 172. Walsh v. StuddertUNKIR I. R. 5 C. L. 478. Roe v. Archbishop of YorkENR 6 East, 86. Doe v. Courtnay 11......