Symons v Rutter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1691 |
| Date | 01 January 1691 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 23 E.R. 747
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
2VERN. 228. SYMONS V. RUTTER 747 i ~ ' Case 207.-symons versus rutter. 4 Mali [1691]. [1] Eq. Ca. Ab. 274, pi. 7; Pre. Ch. 23, S. C. By marriage articles agreed that 500, the wife's portion, should be invested in a purchase of lands to be settled on husband and wife for their lives; remainder to the heirs of their two bodies ; remainder to the heirs of the body of the wife ; remainder to the plaintiff, the wife's brother in fee. The wife dies without issue, and then the husband dies, the 500 not being laid out. Whether this money is to be taken as land, and go to the plaintiff, to whom the fee is limited; or as money, and go to the executor of the husband. On the marriage of Elizabeth Symonds with John Butter, it was agreed by articles in writing, that five hundred pounds, part of the portion of Elizabeth, should be placed in the hands of Sir Francis Child and William Pain, to be placed out at interest, until it could be invested in a purchase, with the consent of Elizabeth and John Butter, her intended husband, in houses or lands of inheritance, to be settled to the use of John Butter and Etizabeth his intended wife for their lives, and the life of the longest liver, remainder to the heirs of their two bodies; remainder to the heirs of the body of Elisabeth; remainder to the plaintiff the brother of Elizabeth, and his heirs. The marriage being afterwards had, and the five hundred pounds deposited with the trustees, before any purchase had, Elisabeth died without issue; John Butter survived, and received the interest of the five hundred pounds, during his life; he being dead, the plaintiff now claimed the five hundred pounds, by virtue of the remainder to him and his heirs, and as brother and heir of the said Elisabeth, and also as having administration to her de bonis non administered by John Butter the husband, who survived Elizabeth his wife. Per Trevor and Rawlinson, the five hundred pounds in this case is to be looked on as money, and not as land, and go to the defendant as administrator to John Rutter the husband, [228] who survived: First, because no positive covenant that it should be laid out in land. Secondly, not to be laid out in land, but by the consent of John Butter and Elizabeth his wife,(l)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John Cookson, - Appellant; Isaac Cookson and Others, - Respondents
...the death of Hannah, the heir of Isaac, who had previously died intestate, became entitled to the property as realty; Symons v. Rutter (2 Vern. 227), Lechmere v. Earl of Carlisle (3 P. Wms. 211), Walker v. Denne (2 Ves., jun. 170), Wheldale v. Partridge (8 Ves. 235), Thorntonv. Hawley (10 V......
-
William Pulteney, Esq., and Frances his wife, Plaintiffs; The Earl of Darlington and Others, Defendants
...v. Lady Warwick, 2 Wms. 171, the money vested in the hands of the trustees. I omitted Lancy v.- Fairchild, 2 Vern. 101 ; Symons v. Butter, 2 Vern. 227. I think Hutchins was right. In Oldham v. Hughes, 2 Atk. 452, the husband claimed, in opposition to his own agreement, to lay it out in land......
-
Heir and Ancestor
...the Brother, to whom the Fee was limited; per Trevor and Bawlinson, Lords Commissioners, against Hutchins, Pasc. 1691; Symons and Butter, 2 Vern. 227. (Prec. in Chan. 23, Easter 1691, S. G. says, Trevor and Rawlinson were of Opinion that the Money should not be laid out in Land, but should ......
-
Batteste v Maunsell and Others
...C. Court. BATTESTE and MAUNSELL AND OTHERS. Lechmere v. Carlisle 3 P. W. 211. Symons v. RutterENR 2 Vern. 227. Thornton v. Hawley 10 Ves. 129, 138. Costello v. O'Rorke Ir. R. 3 Eq. 172. Wrightson v. MacaulayUNK 4 Ha. 487. Walsh v. StuddertUNK Ir. R. 5 C. L. 478. Morris v. MorrisUNK Ir. R. 6......