Rundle v Rundle
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 June 1692 |
| Date | 01 June 1692 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 23 E.R. 764
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
764 RUNDLE'ft BUNDLE 2 VEBN. 253. Case 239.-bundle versus rundle. 22 Feb. [1691]. Post, Ca. 249; [1] Eq. Ca. Ab. 119, pi. 9, S. G. ; 2 Freem. 122. Seems S. 0. Alexander Bundle purchases a copyhold estate in a western manor for his own life, and the lives of John his son, and of Alice, who was his niece. Alexander and John his son being both dead, the plaintiff, who was the widow and administratrix of Alexander, brought her bill against Alice, setting forth the custom of the manor Prout, and that the name of Alice was made use of by Alexander in trust for him, who paid the whole fine,(l) &c., and prayed the same might be decreed a trust, and made liable to the debts of Alexander. Vid Order.(2) (1) [In the report of this case, post, 264, it is said, it does not appear the fine was paid by Alexander, which is material. See Smith v. Baker, 1 Atk. 385. Withers v. Withers, Amb. 151.] (2) 1st June, the cause stood over for time to search precedents till this time, when the decree was as follows," whereupon, &c., it appeared that the said Alexander Bundle, " the plaintiff's late husband, in his life time, declared that after his, and his son John's " death, the defendant Alice should have the aforesaid tenement, and inasmuch as " nothing of a trust appeared in the copy of court-roll, either for the said Alexander, " or the said plaintiff his wife, and for that it could not be a resulting trust for Alexander, " in regard the copy was granted as well in consideration of the estate surrendered by " Richard the father of Alexander, who was estated therein as for the fine paid by " Alexander, nor did there appear in proof any want of assets of the said Alexander's " estate, to pay his debts ; their lordships declared that they could give the plaintiff no " relief, &c." Bill dismissed without costs, Reg. Lib. 1691, B. fol. 540. Vide Mumma v. Mumma, ante, p. 19. Withers v. Withers, Amb. 151. Dyer v. Dyer [2 Cox. 92].
English Reports Citation: 23 E.R. 771
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Case 249.-rundle versus RuNDLE.(l) 25 Apr. and 1 Junii [1692]. Ant. Case 239. A copyhold is granted to three successively, but no custom proved that the first taker had the power of disposing of the whole, nor that the first taker paid the purchase-money. This shall not go to the executor of the first taker, but shall go in succession. There being no custom within the manor where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Merritt v Merritt
-
Dyer v Dyer
...2 Cha. Ca. 231. [93] Ebrand v. Dancer, 2 Cha. Ca. 26. Kingdome v. Bridges, 2 Vern. 67. Back v. Andrews, 2 Vern. 120. Bundle v. Bundle, 2 Vern. 264. Lamplugh v. Lamplugh, 1 P. W. 111. Stileman v. Ashdown, 2 Atk. 430. Pole v. Pole, 1 Ves. 76. Lord Chief Baron \Eyre], after directing the cause......
-
Withers v Withers and Others
...is entitled to the copyhold estate by operation of law. How v. How, in Vern. is in point- Therefore decree, &c.(3) Bundle v. Bundle, 2 Vern. 264, was cited. A question being made, to whom the copyholds should belong, whether to the heir at law or personal representative ? Lord Chancellor th......
-
Copyhold
...Taker paid the Purchase-Money ; it shall not go to the Executor of the First Taker, but shall go in Succession. Vide Bundle and Bundle, 2 Vern. 264, Pasc. 1692. 10. But if by the Custom the first Taker may dispose of the Whole, and he likewise pays the Purchase-Money, it shall not be a Trus......