Sir Matthew Jenison v Lord Lexington
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1719 |
| Date | 01 January 1719 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 24 E.R. 515
MASTER OF THE ROLLS.
Case 160.-Sir matthew jenison versus Lord lexington. [1719.] Master of the Rolls. 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 430, pi. 10. /. S. lessee of land to him and his heirs for three lives, assigns the whole estate, reserving a rent to him and his executors, and dies ; his executors, and not his heir, are entitled to the rent. A tenant for three lives to him and his heirs, assigns over his whole estate in the premisses by lease and release, to /. S. and his heirs, reserving a rent of £10 a-year to the assignor, his executors, administrators and assigns, with proviso that upon nonpayment the assignor and his heirs might re-enter, and the assignee covenants to pay the rent to A. the assignor, his executors and administrators. Objected, This rent reserved comes in lieu of land, and as [556] the land would have gone to the assignor and his heirs, so shall the rent, and this is further explained by the proviso, which says the assignor and his heirs shall enter. On the other side I insisted, that the assignor having parted with his whole estate for all the three lives, he had no reversion left in him to which the rent could be incident; and therefore it being by express words reserved to the executors, it should go to them for the three lives. That in case one seised in fee should lease the premisses for years, reserving the rent to the lessor and his executors, this would prevent the rent from going to the heir, though he had the reversion, and the rent in such case would sink after the death of the lessor (1 Inst. 47), and would not go to the executors, because they would not be intitled to the reversion to which the rent was incident; So if tenant for three lives were to make a lease for years, reserving a rent to him and his executors, it would not go to his heir, neither to his executors ; but in the principal case, there being no reversion to which the rent was incident, it might be reserved to the executors. For- That when the whole estate was granted away...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farrington v Knightly
...in Farrington v. Knightly, as by Gobsall v. Sounden, 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 444, pi. 58. Martin v. Rebow, C. iv.-17 514 FARRINGTON V. KNIGHTLY 1 P. WMS. 555. 1 Bro. C. G. 154. So, equal pecuniary legacies to two or more executors shall exclude them from the surplus, Petit v. Smith, ante, 7, and the ......
-
James West, - Appellant; Susannah Lawday, - Respondent
...for perpetual renewal at a nominal fine, and that rent would not have gone to the same person as the lands; Jenison v. Lexington (1 P. Wms. 555). The fee of the land was not in the testator, but in Gorham. There is no latent ambiguity in this will, so as to give rise for any necessity for c......
-
Lessee of Henry John Proter, and Others v French
...93. Palmer v. EdwardsENR 1 Doug. 187. Fawcett v. Hall Al. & Nap. 253. Parmenter v. WebberENR 8 Taunt. 595. Jenison v. Lord LexingtonENR 1 P. Wms. 555. Pluck v. Digges 2 H. & B. 14. Charters v. Sherrock Al. & Nap. 22. Fewcett v. Hall Ibid. 257. Curtis v. WheelerENR M. & M. 494. Treport's Hud......
-
Plunket v Reilly
...PLUNKET and REILLY. Gifford v. GoldseyENR 2 Vern. 35. Butt's caseUNK 7 Rep. 23. Lowe v. BurrowENR 3 P. Wms. 262. Jennison v. LexingtonENR 1 P. Wms. 555. Bearpark v. HutchinsonENR 7 Bing. 168. Salter v. BotelerENR Vaugh. 199. Warburton v. Ivie 1 H. & Br. 635. CHANCERY REPORTS. 585 a cause ca......