Riccard v Cole
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 January 1833 |
| Date | 19 January 1833 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 58 E.R. 471
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Observed upon, Grant v. Bridger, 1866, L. R. 3 Eq. 347.
Will. Revocation. Recovery.
[618] lock v. foote. lock v. cole. eiccard v. cole. Jan. 19, 1833. [Observed upon, Grant v. Bridget, 1866, L. R. 3 Eq. 347.] Will. Revocation. Recovery. A. devised estates of which he had only the equitable fee, and afterwards agreed to sell part of the estates, and, to remove an objection taken by the purchaser but which was not well founded, he suffered a recovery. Held that, though the recovery was an equitable one, and the purpose for which it was suffered was expressly mentioned in the deed declaring the uses, and though the limitations thereby made of the property not intended to be sold were precisely the same as before the recovery, and were expressed to be in restoration and confirmation of them, the will was revoked. The bill stated that Henry Foote was, at the time of making hia will jand of his death, seised of certain real estates, and had power to appoint by will certain other real estates, and that, by his will, dated the 31st of January 1805, and duly executed and attested, he confirmed to his wife, Honor Foote, a certain annuity or yearly rent-charge of 100, charged on and payable out of his lands in St. Clement's therein mentioned, to which she was entitled during her life, [619] under and by virtue of the settlement therein mentioned: and he thereby gave, devised and appointed all his messuages, bartons, farms, lands, tenements, rents and hereditaments whatsoever, and all parts and purparties thereof, situate in the several parishes of St. Clement's and Truro in the county of Cornwall, and of Chulmleigh and South Molton in the county of Devon, and all other his freehold lands and hereditaments whatsoever, to the Defendants, John Thomas and William Karslake, their heirs and assigns, to the use of the said J. Thomas and W. Karslake, their executors, administrators and assigns, for the term of 1000 years next ensuing the day of his death ; and from and after the expiration or other sooner determination of the said term, and in the meantime, subject thereto and to the said annuity or rent-charge so payable thereout as aforesaid, to the use of the said Honor Foote and Ann Meddon for their joint natural lives, &c., &c. The bill further stated that, by indentures of lease and release of the 23d and 24th of November 1807, the release being made between Henry Foote and Honor his wife of the first part, C. Marsh and the said W. Karslake of the second part, John Burgess Karslake and the said J. Thomas of the third part, Joseph King of the fourth part, and the said William Karslake of the fifth part, after reciting that Henry 472 LOCK V. FOOTE 5 SIM. 620. Foote became tenant in tail in possession under the will of Henry Foote, then late of Lambesson, in the county of Cornwall, deceased, dated the 25th day of June 1755, of the messuages and hereditaments thereinafter described and thereby released or otherwise assured ; and that, by indentures of lease arid release of the 31st of May and 1st of June 1790, and by a common recovery, the mes-[620]-suages and hereditaments first thereinafter described and thereby released were, together with other hereditaments, since sold by Henry Foote, conveyed and assured to the use of Henry Foote, for life, with remainder to the use of such persons and for such estates, and in such manner as Henry Foote should, by writing under his hand and seal duly executed, or by his last will and testament, devise, lease, release, convey or appoint, and, in default thereof, to the use of the heirs of the body of Henry Foote, with divers remainders over: and that, by indentures of lease and release of the 18th and 19th of L ec. 1795, the release being made between Henry Foote of the first part, Honor Marsh, spinster, of the second part, George Poole and Proctor Thomas of the third part, Cornelius Marsh and William Karslake of the fourth part, and J. B. Karslake the elder and John Thomas of the fifth part (being the settlement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duppa, Executor of Baskerville v Mayo
...fee only. Whence it appears that equitable estates are governed by the same doctrine, in this respect, that legal estates are. See 5 Sim. 618, Lock v. Foote, accord. The rule, indeed, seems general, that every act of revocation at law is a revocation in equity, except where the object of th......
-
Walker v Armstrong
...v. Studley (cited in 1 Bos. & P. 575) ; Parke v. Lamb (1 Bro. P. C. 160); Tickner v. Tickner (1 Sugd. on Powers, 107); Lock v. Foote (5 Sim. 618); Brydges v. Chandos (2 Ves. 417); Harmooil v. Oglawler (8 Ves. 106); Lord Langford v. Little (2 Jo. & Lat. 613). Mr. Borton, for Robert Baynes Ar......
-
George Wilford Bulkley, - Appellant; Anna Wilford, - Respondent
...the will, and devolve the estate on the heir at law. Ten thousand other wills have been revoked by similar accidents (See Locke v. Foote, 5 Sim: 618) ; the fault, if any, is to be charged on the law, that allows a will to he revoked without the knowledge of the testator. Your Lordships have......
-
Power v Power
...GreenENR 4 Russ. 28. Williams v. Owens 2 Ves. jun. 595. Rawlins v. Burgis 2 Ves. & B. 382. Harmood v. Oglander 8 Ves. 107. Lock v. FooteENR 5 Sim. 618. Casburne v. Inglis Lee's Rep., temp. Hardw. 401. The King v. WinstanleyENR 1 C. & J. 434. Sparrow v. Hardcastle 1 Lord Ken. 70. Rider v. Wa......