Seymour v Trevilyan and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 July 1737 |
| Date | 16 July 1737 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 25 E.R. 846
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
[109] seymour v. trevilyan and Others* July 16^,1737. S. C. 3 Atk. 358. A husband cannot devise away a wife's paraphernalia, he can only bar her by acts done in his life-time. (See Northey v. Northey, post. Marshall v. Blew, 2 Atk. 217. Hastings v. Douglas, Cro. Car. 343.) This was a bill brought by the trustees of Mr. Portman's will, for carrying into execution the trusts of his will. Mr. Portman by his will of the 31st of January 1723, gives his wife £10,000 in full of all her dower and thirds, and in full satisfaction of any lands he had settled on her for life; and he gives her all her wearing apparel, and ornaments of her person, the gold watch and great pearl necklace which she usually wore, his snuff-box which came from France, and all his jewels, except those set about Sir William Portman's picture, which he gave to his niece, wife of the defendant Berkeley ; and all the residue of his personal estate he gives to his executors, for the purposes mentioned in his will. By a codicil of the 13th of March 1723, he revoked the legacy of his great pearl WEST*. HAItfl. 110. TAYLOR V. TAYLOR 847 necklace and jewels devised to his wife by the will, and ratines his will in all other respects. By another codicil of the 16th of April 1726, he gives to his wife his diamond earrings, which cost near £1200 ; to the Earl of Pawlett his snuff-box, that had a cornelian stone thereon ; and to his godson Cmrtenay, son of Sir William Courtenay, his snuffbox set with diamonds, and ratifies his will in all other respects. The testator's widow afterwards intermarried with the defendant Fownes. Mr. Fazakerley for the plaintiff. The Attorney-General for the defendants Fownes and his wife. Lord Chancellor. That it is a general rub of equity where the demands are of the same kind of estate, that you cannot claim under and yet controvert the testator's intention. [110] But I give no opinion where they are different. It is plain the paraphernalia are included in the devise in the will; but a husband cannot devise away a wife's paraphernalia, he can bar her only by act done in his lifetime. Tipping v. Tipping, 1 P. Wins. 730. The revocation is of the devise of his jewels, which seem to be contradistinguished even in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial