Tebbott v Voules
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 February 1833 |
| Date | 26 February 1833 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 58 E.R. 510
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Will. Revocation.
[40] tebbott v. voules. Feb. 26, 1833. Will. Revocation. A testator devised all his real estates to his children equally, and afterwards entered into contracts for the sale of his estates, but died before they were completed. The purchasers afterwards abandoned their contracts, because they were unable to procure a conveyance from some of the devisees, who were infants. Held, that, though the contracts were properly abandoned, the will was revoked as to the premises therein comprised. William Voules, by his will dated the 17th of February 1827, devised his real -and personal estates to all his children except James Parker Voules, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, as tenants in common. The testator died in November 1828, leaving 13 children him surviving, five of whom were infants. The bill, which was filed by his simple contract creditors in June 1830, stated ò(amongst other things) that [41] the testator, subsequently to his will, had entered into contracts with different persons for the sale to them of the greater part of his estates, and which contracts were subsisting and binding at his death, but none of them had then been completed. It prayed that, if the testator's personal estate should not be sufficient to pay his debts and funeral expenses, it might be declared that his simple contract creditors were entitled to have such of his real estates as were -contracted to be sold, or the purchase-monies for the same applied to increase his personal estate for the benefit of his creditors, and that the same might be applied accordingly, and if it should appear that any of the contracts had been abandoned and the deposit monies returned, that the premises comprised in those contracbs might be resold for the benefit of the simple contract creditors to increase the personal estate. The decree made on the hearing of the cause directed the Master to inquire what real estates the testator was seised of, and what contracts he had entered into for the sale of any and which of his estates, and which of such contracts were subsisting and binding at his death, and which of the purchasers were willing to perform their SIM. M. TEBBOTT V. VOULES 511 contracts; and which of them refused to perform their contracts; and whether any and which of their contracts had been abandoned since the testator's death, and by whom and by whose order and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duppa, Executor of Baskerville v Mayo
...as a conveyance would be at law; 19 Ves. 178, Bennett v. Tankerville; though the contract be rescinded after the devisor's death, ibid. [6 Sim. 40, Tebbott v. FbitJesJ ((/) [But by stat. 1 Viet. c. 26, s. 19, "No will shall be revoked by any presumption of an intention on the ground of an a......
-
Andrew v Andrew
...question of revocation being one of intention; Lord Lincoln v. Holies (1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 411); Simpson v. talker (5 Sim. 1); Tebbott v. Voules (6 Sim. 40); Hide v. Mars (Arab. 215); Abney v. Miller (2 Atk. 598). Mr. Craig and Mr. Charles Hall, for the executors. Mr. Elmsley, in reply. Judgment ......
-
Fitzgerald v Sterling
...1 J. & L. 162. Wood v. KnoxUNK 3 Ir. Ch. Rep. 109. Alleyne v. Alleyne 2 J. & L. 544. ENRENRMayer v. Gowhland (Dick. 563); Tebbet v. Vowles (6 Sim. 40.) Beard v. BeardENR 3 Atk. 72. 198 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1857. Ch. Appeal. FITZGERALD v. STERLING.* March 10. A testator, by THE Rev. Hemsworth U......
-
Morgan v Holford
...purchaser against the testator, it would amount to a revocation of the will: Bennett v. Lord Tankerville (19 Ves. 177), Tebbott v. Vowles (6 Sim. 40). It follows, therefore, that to create a devisable interest both parties must be bound by the contract. Then it is said the will itself is en......