Roe on the demise of Christopher James against D. Avis and Mary his Wife, Archibald Hay and Elizabeth his Wife, and John Barber and Ann his Wife
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 May 1792 |
| Date | 04 May 1792 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 100 E.R. 1200
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Distinguished, Jones v. Skinner, 1835, 5 L. J. Ch. 91. Held over-ruled, Tennent v. Tennent, 1844, 1 Jo. & Lat. 384; Mortimer v. Hartley, 1851, 6 Ex. 62.
EOE ON THE DEMISE OF CHRISTOPHER JAMES against D. AV[S AND MARY his Wife, archibald hay and elizabeth his Wife, and john barber and ann his Wife. Friday, May 4th, 1792. Under a devise " to A. and B. and their heirs, and in caae they agreed to sell the estate, that they should have their equal shares of the money arising therefrom; but if they agreed to keep the estate whole together, then that the rents should be equally paid and divided between them, and to the several and respective heirs of their bodies." A. and B. took only estates tail. A. being seised in fee-tail of an undivided one-fourth part of an estate, and entitled to the reversion in fee of another one-fourth, expectant on the determina tion of an estate tail, recited, that she was entitled to the first, and devised it to B. C. in fee; and then directed "all the residue and remainder of her estate and effects to be sold as soon as might be after her death, and her funeral expenses to be paid thereout; and the overplus (if any) to be divided between D. and E." Held, that the reversion did not pass by these general words. [Distinguished, Jones v. Skinner, 1835, 5 L. J. Ch. 91. Held over-ruled, Tennent v. Tennent, 1844, 1 Jo. & Lat. 384; Mortimer v. Hartley, 1851, 6 Ex. 62.] On the trial of this ejectment, at the last Summer Assizes at Hertford, before Gould, J. a special case was reserved for the opinion of the Court. The material facts in this case were these :-J. Beech, being seised in fee of the premises in question, devised to his wife for life, and after her decease "to be equally divided between his four children, Henry, John, Elizabeth, and Sarah, and to each of them and their heirs for ever, share and share alike; and in case they should be minded and agree among themselves to sell the said estate, then every one of his said children should have (a) In Stead v. Berrier, Sir T. Raymond said, " Constructions of wills ought to be collected out of the words, and not dehors, or by averment, as 5 Co. 68, Chenye's case." (b) 1 P. Wms. 399. 4T.R. 606. ROE V. AVIS 1201 their equal shares of monies from thence arising; but if they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe, on the Demise of King and Wife, against Catherine Frost
...it appeared from the other parts of the will that the testator could have had no intention of including it. And Eoe, dem. James, v. Avis (4 T. R. 605), Goodtitle v. Miles (6 East, 494), Smith v. Sounders (2 Black. 736. Cowp. 420), Amesbwry v. Brown, cited in 2 Blac. 739, and Doe v. Underdow......
-
Thomas Duffield, and Emily Francis his Wife, Plaintiffs in the Court of Chancery-Appellants; Amelia Maria Elwes, Francis Const, George Law, Abraham Henry Chambers, William Hicks, George Thomas Warren Hastings Duffield, Caroline Duffield, Maria Duffield, Anna Duffield, Susan Eliza Duffield, Infants, Defendants in the same Court, by Original and Amended Bill, - Respondents
...are not always of universal operation. Strong v. Teate (2 Burr. 912); Roe d. Helling v. Teud (2 New Rep. 214) ; Roe d. James v. Avis (4 T. R. 605); Goodtvtle v. Miles (6 East, 494) : [296] this is confirmed by the answer of the King's Bench to the first question. 1346 DUFFIELD V. DUPFIELD [......
-
Freeman v Freeman
...of any intention, and, therefore, that argument could not be of any assistance; and, further, he held upon the authority of Roe v. Avis (4 T. R. 605) that the reversion did not pass under any circumstances ; and he dismissed the bill. Lord Eldon was dissatisfied with that decision, and dire......
-
Doe dem. David Howell v Benjamin Thomas and Others
...of general words may be, controlled by the inte'ntion, to be collected from the general contents of the will; Roe dem. James v. Avis (4 T. R. 605). It must be admitted, however, that, in Church v. Mimdy (15 Ves. 403), Lord Eldon expressed himself dissatisfied with Roe v. Avis; but Lord Eldo......