Plunket v Homes. Hill
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1714 |
| Date | 01 January 1714 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 82 E.R. 961
King's Bench Division
6. plunket verms homes. hill. 1658. Eo. 521. B. R. Devise al un [que est heire] pur vie le rem' in contingency. Feme aianfc deux fits per divers barons (queux fuer' mort) scil. T. per le primer bar' & L. per le [second bar' devisa sa terre (viz.) certaine measons in Londres al T. pur vie & a sa issue in tail, & sil mor' sans issue vivant al temps de son mort donque ai L. en fee, but if my son T. die, having issue of his body living at the time of his death, then to T. and his heirs, le feme mor' T. enter & suffera common recovery & mor' sans issue L. mor' aiant issue. Et si le refn al issue de L. fuit destroy fuit le question, et fuit adjudge que fuit destroy. Cest case fuifcs soveu foit argue en cest Court durant le temps que jeo fui reporter in C. B. Et cest terme in mon absence fuit resolve per Curiam come jeo oye. 1. Que T. nad que estate pur vie accordant al limitation del devise coment que le reversion discend a luy come heire, et pur cest discent ne destroy les remainders, et quant a cest poynt cest case est idem en substance ove Archer's case, Cok. 1. 66, 67. car la Rob. Archer que fuit devisee pur vie fuit auxi heire. 2. Que icy nest contingency sur contingency (car si issinst fuit serra void accordant al...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Purefoy v Rogers and Others
...took an estate only for life by the will, yet by operation of law he had the fee also. Sir T. Raym. 28, Plunket v. Holmes. 1 Lev. 11. 1 Sid. 47, S. C. Lord Male's opinion has been also recognised in a subsequent case, where Sir M. A. devised to E. for life, and in case E. should have issue ......
-
Loddington v Kime
...Edition. (a) E. ace. 8 Mod. 253, 382. Str. 798. Fitzg. 7. 10 Mod. 181. Gilb. L. & E. 20, 129. 3 Wils. 242, 244. Fide I Vent. 232. Eay. 28. 1 Sid. 47. 2 Lev. 224. 2 Mod. Ca. 261, 283. 2 Atkyns 570. 3 Atk. 784. (b) Fide Str. 804. Fitzg. 321. 1 Bro. Ch. Ca. 220. 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 184. 4 T. E. 299,......
-
Luddington v Kime
...to 110. A limitation which may take effect as a contingent remainder shall never be construed an executory devise. R. ace. 2 Saund. 380. 1 Sid. 47. 1 Keb. 119. Com. 372. D. ace. 1 Term Rep. 632. Fearne 3d ed. 295, 300. Dougl. 252. No estate limited after a contingent limitation in fee, can ......
-
Wealthy on the Demise of Manley v Bosville
...at law ; and like the case of Pinbury and Elltin, 2 Vern. 758, 766. [Eq. Ca. Abr. 179, c. 1 : Cr. Ch. 483 : 1 P. Wms. 563.] He cited also 1 Sid. 47 : T. Eaym. 28 : 1 Roll. Rep. 318, Blandford and Blandfard, that executory devise cannot be barred by a common recovery. Filmer, for defendant, ......