Randfield v Randfield
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 March 1860 |
| Date | 08 March 1860 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 11 E.R. 414
House of Lords
Mews' Dig. xv. 356, 1081, 1082, 1343. S.C. 30 LJ.Ch.177; 6 Jur. N.S. 901; 9 W.R. 1; and, below, 11 W.R. 847; 2 N.R. 309; and cf. 4 Drew. 147; 2 De G. and J. 57. On point (i.) as to cutting down clear gift in will, cited in Langdale v. Briggs, 1873, 28 L.T. 469; and see note to Hearle v. Hicks, 1831, 1 Cl. and F. 20; (ii.) date of will, see Reffell v. Reffell, 1866, L.R. 1 P. and D. 142; (iii.) gift to attesting witness, see Cozens v. Crout, 1873, 21 W.R. 781; and In re Trotter, Trotter v. Trotter (1899), 1 Ch. 764.
Wills Act - Date of Will - Witnesses - Legatees - Dying without Issue - Contingency gone - Residue - Real and Personal Estate.
* VIII H.L.C., 225 RANDFIELD V. RANDFIELD [i860] [225] HAKRIET REEVE RANDFIELD,- Appellant; RICHARD RANDFIELD and Others,-Respondents [Feb. 28, 29, March 8, I860]. [Mews' Dig. xv. 356, 1081, 1082, 1343. S.C. 30 LJ.Ch.177; 6 Jur. N.S. 901; 9 W.R. 1; and, below, 11 W.R. 847; 2 N.R. 309 ; and cf. 4 Drew. 147; 2 De G. and J. 57. On point (i.) as to cutting down clear gift in will, cited in Langdale v. Briggs, 1873, 28 L.T. 469; and see note to Hearle v. Hicks, 1831, 1 Cl. and F. 20; (ii.) date of will, see Befell v. Befell, 1866, L.R. 1 P. and D. 142; (iii.) gift to attesting witness, see Cozens v. Grout, 1873, 21 W.R. 781; and In re Trotter, Trotter v. Trotter (1899), 1 Ch. 764.] Wills Act-Date of Will-Witnesses-Legatees-Dying without Issue-Contingency gone--Residue-Real and Personal Estate. In applying the rule that a clear gift in a will is not to be cut down by any subsequent provision, unless the latter is equally clear, the plain intention of the testator, and not the comparative lucidity of the two parts of the will is to be regarded. Where a testator prepared a will in 1837 (before the Wills Act) but did not execute it till 1844, and in the meantime one contingency mentioned in the prepared will had gone, the words in the will when executed were construed without reference to that contingency. A testator devised all his freehold and copyhold estates to his son " when he have obtained the age of twenty-one years, upon the following conditions," and directed that his own widow should receive an annuity out of these rents; he then gave to his son all his personal estates, consisting of ships, bonds, and funded stock, etc., " but should the hand of death fall on my widow and son, and my having no other children, or my son any issue, my will is then that should he leave a widow, she shall receive an annuity out of my real estates as before mentioned, the residue then to be equally divided, share and share alike, after paying such legacies as I may hereafter name, the division to be " between certain persons specifically mentioned, " (they paying all my son's debts, funeral expenses and demands, or my wife's should she be the longest liver)." The son became twenty-one some years before the will was executed ; he married, but died without ever having had issue : Held, varying the decree of the Court below, that the gift over affected only the real estate. Held also, that the will must be read as if made in 1844. That the contingency of attaining twenty-one was to be disregarded, and that the gift over took effect on the son dying without issue. A will was executed in 1844. It had the name of the testator, his seal, the word " witness," and then the names of two persons, J. T. G. and J. S. H. These names were the last marks on the third side of the sheet of paper on which the will was written. On the top of the fourth side were the words " This last will and testament was signed in our presence, and in, the presence [226] of each other, by him, J. T. G., J. S. H., G. B." This last name was that of a person named as a legatee in the will: Held, that this was not such an attestation of the will as to deprive G. B. of her right to the legacy. William Randfield, late of Harwich, shipowner, made a will, which was dated 18th October 1837, but was not executed until the 14th February 1844. By this will he devised all freehold and copyhold estates in the county of Essex (which he specifically enumerated) " to my son, William Cass Randfield, after my decease, and when he have obtained the age of twenty-one years, upon the following conditions being complied with, agreeable to this my will: that my widow, Ann Randfield, his mother, shall receive annually the sum of 120, issuing out of the rents of all my houses, farms, etc." for life in widowhood, with a house to live in, rent free, and with all the requisite furniture, etc., to be selected by her from the testator's furniture, for her use during her life. " I then give and devise to my son, William Cass Randfield, all my personal estates whatsoever and wheresoever, and all my vessels, coasting 414 RANDFIELD V. RANDFIELD [i860] VIII H.L.C., 227 vessels, parts and shares of vessels, securities for money, mortgages, bonds, notes, with all funded property standing in the name of William Kandfield in the books of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, and also of my private bankers, with all my stock in trade, residue of household furniture, plate, linen, goods, chattels, and all my effects of whatever nature, kind, or description, at the time of my decease: but should the hand of death fall on my widow, Ann Eandfield, and son, W. Cass Randfield, and my having no other children, or my son any issue lawfully begotten, my will is then, that, should he leave a widow, that she shall receive the annual sum of 50 during [227] her widowhood out of my real estates before mentioned; the residue then to be equally divided, share and share alike, after paying such legacies as I may hereafter name, the division of property to be between, etc. (they paying all my just debts, funeral expenses, and demands, or my wife's, should she be the longest liver)." The will was written on three sides of a sheet of paper; the testator and also two persons, named Groom and Harris, signed their names at the bottom of the first and second sides; at the bottom of the third side were the following words and names, " witness my hand and seal, W. Randfield (l.s.). (Witness) John T. Groom, James S. Harris." On the fourth side was written the following memorandum, without any other writing, above it or below it, on that side of the sheet: " This will and testament was signed in our presence, and in the presence of each other by him. Witness thereto, John T. Groom, James S. Harris, Grace Beeston." This Grace Beeston was; a niece of the testator, and was one of the residuary legatees specifically named in the will. The testator died 29th February 1844, leaving his wife and son him, surviving. The son had attained the age of twenty-one in 1839, about two years after the date of the making of the will, and about five years before its execution. On the death of his, father, he entered into possession of all the property, and paid the annuity to his mother. He died in 1856, leaving Harriet Reeve Randfield (the Appellant) his widow, and also his mother him surviving. He never had any issue. He had made a will on the 3d February 1855, leaving all his real and personal estate to his widow, whom he appointed his sole executrix. She filed a bill, stating all the facts, and among them that " Grace Beeston, the niece of the testator, in his will named was an attesting [228] witness of the execution of his said will. She nevertheless claims an interest in the said testator's estate." The bill prayed that the will of W. Randfield might be established, and the rights and interests of all parties ascertained and declared, etc. The residuary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Redman v Hage
-
Kellett v Kellett
...34. Conron v. ConronENR 7 H. L. C. 168. Doe v. HicksENR 1 Cl. & Fin. 20. Greville v. BrowneENR 7 H. L. C. 689. Randfield v. RandfieldENR 8 H. L. C. 225. Home v. PillansENR 2 My. & K. 15. Campbell v. Brownrigg 1 Philips, 301. Howard v. CollinsELR L. R. 5 Eq. 349. Wordsworth v. WoodENR 1 H. L......
- Sydney Homoeopathic Hospital v Turner
- Rogers v Rogers