The King and Queen v Portington et Al
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 856
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER.
Mich. 4 Will. 3 B. R.
3. the king and queen versus portington & al'. [Mich. 4 Will. 3, B. R.] 1 Salk. 162, S. C. Where an averment will not be allowed to defeat a will. In ejectment by the heir at law against the devisee, the case upon evidence was, that the defendants were Roman Catholics, and that one of them did recommend such a priest to be confessor to the testatrix, who persuaded her she could not be saved, unless she devised her estate to God and His Saints, and that the defendant was an abbess in France, and joining with the confessor in the same delusive persuasions, 3 SALKELD. 338. TAIL 857 prevailed with the testatrix to devise her estate to her, and this was urged to be evidence of a superstitious use; but the Court was of opinion, that this being an absolute devise, and no trust declared or appearing upon the face of the will itself, no such averment could be made or admitted, for if the law will not allow an averment to supply a will, a fortiori, there can be none to defeat it: et per Holt, Ch. Just. The Stat. 123 H. 8, makes such uses void, but doth not give them to the King, and the Statute 1 Ed. 6, gives them to the King, but doth not extend to future uses made after that statute; and that it might be convenient for the heir at law to seek his remedy in Parliament, according to the case in Moor 784, qiiod vide. 1. [335] Feoffment to the use of his last will; then the testator devised his lands to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Symonds against Cudmore
...he is a stranger, who never had any privity in the estate in tail.-S. C. Salk. 338. S. C. 1 Show. 370. S. C. Skin. 284, 317, 328. S. C. 3 Salk. 335. S. C. Garth. 257. S. C. 12 Mod. 32. S. C. Holt, 666. S. C. 1 Freem. 503. An ejectment was brought for one messuage, one curtilage, and a garde......
-
Symonds v Cudmore
...379 dk term. S. hil. 1692. in banco regis. case 677. symonds v. cudmore. [See Pemberton v. Barnes [1899], 1 Ch. 548.] S. C. 1 Salk. 338. 3 Salk. 335. Garth. 257. 4 Mod. 1. 1 Show. 370. Skin. 284, 317, 328. 12 Mod. 32. Holt, 666. Where tenant in tail with reversion in himself in fee makes a ......