Re The Greenwich Hospital Improvement Act
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 May 1855 |
| Date | 08 May 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 680
ROLLS COURT
Followed, Evans v. Jones, 1877, 46 L. J. Ex. 280.
[458] Be the greenwich hospital improvement act. May 7, 8, 1855. [Followed, Evans v. Jones, 1877, 46 L. J. Ex. 280.] A testator " gave" to his wife, for her use and benefit, " his leases, moneys, goods, furniture, plate, book debts, securities for money and all other property, of every description, that he might be possessed of." Held, that the real estate passed. The testator, by his will, dated in 1843, expressed himself as follows:-"I give and bequeath to my dearly beloved wife, Ann Phillips, for her use and benefit, my leases, moneys, goods, furniture, plate, book debts, securities for money, and all other property of every description that I may be possessed of at the time of my decease." And he appointed his wife and brothers his executors. After the testator's death, a part of his real estate was taken under the above Improvement Act, and the purchase-money was paid into Court. Mrs. Phillips now petitioned for payment of the fund to her, and the question was, whether the real estate passed to her by the will. S 159] Mr. C. M. Roupell, in support of the petition. This is a gift to the widow 1 "property of every description," and "for her absolute benefit." The word " property " has the most extensive operation, and includes real as well as personal estata Like the word " estate," it primd fade includes freeholds ; Fullerton v. Martin (17 Jur. 778); Patterson v. Huddart (17 Beav. 210); Jongsma v. Jmgsma (1 Cox, 362); Dunnage v. mite (1 Jac. & W. 583). Mr. Allnutt, contra. The real estate did not pass by this will. The testator uses the word "give," and not the proper technical word "devise," and gives the property " he is possessed " and not that which he is " seised " of. Even the word " estate," WBEAV.460. JEBB V. TUOWELL 681 which is more applicable to real estate, may be restricted by the context; Woollaun v. Ken-worthy (9 Ves. 137); Coard v. Holderness (ante, p. 147); Doe d. Spearing v. Budcner (6 Duraf. & E. 610). Here the general words, following the particular enumeration of personal estate of different descriptions, must be limited to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dickinson and Others v Stidolph
...9 M. & W. 481, Putlonv. Randall, 1 Jac. & W. 189, Sawaareg v. Saumare.z, 4 Milne & Cr. 331, Me Greenwich Hospital Improvement Act, 20 Beavan, 458, Phillips v. Beal, 25 Boavan, 25, Morrison v. Hoppe, 4 De Gex & Sm. 234, Jarman on Wills, 3rd edit. 112, 599, and Williams on Executors, 5th edit......
-
Mullaly v Walsh
...404. Sanderson v. DobsonENRENR 1 Ex. 141; S. C. 7 C. B. 81. O'Toole v. BrowneENR 3 E. & B. 572. Re Greenwich Hospital Improvement ActENR 20 Beav. 458. Wilce v. WilceENR 7 Bing. 664. Roberts v. Sampson 1 Ir. Jur. N. S. 364. Fitzgerald v. Westropp 3 Ir. Jur. N. S. 395. Rex v. Inhabitants of H......
-
Spearing v Hawkes
...1 Bro., C. C., 437. Davenport v. ColtmanENR 9 M. & W. 481. Patterson v. HuddardENR 17 Beav. 210. Re Greenwich Hospital Improvement ActENR 20 Beav. 458. Maitland v. Adair 3 Ves. 231. Coard v. HoldernessENR 20 Beav. 147. Kellett v. Kellett 1 Ba. & Bea. 533. Maitland v. Adair 3 Ves. 230. Bacon......