Thomas and Kennis's Case before
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1657 |
| Date | 01 January 1657 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 124 E.R. 372
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
thomas and kennis's case before. Davenport argued for the plaintiff. And the question here is, whether there was any estate in Edward and Walter setled at the time of the fine levyed? Or their estate was only in contingency 1 Because that Richard was then living. For I agree, that if at the time of the [98] fine levyed, Edward and Walter had not any estate setled or vested but all in contingency, that then the fine destroyed all the remainders. For it is clear when tenant for life is, and the remainder in contingency levy a fine; that is a forfeiture ; and destroys all the contingent remainders. 1 Rep. 131. I hope that they will igree, that if there be an estate setled in them, that tenant for life levies that fine; although that they in the remainder do not enter within 5 years after the death of tenant, or after the estate escheated. And that was adjudged 21 lac. Tookar and Lawns case in the Kings Bench. But the case was Mich. 33 & 34 Eliz. The question then is, whether Edward and Walter having any estates setled in them, two estates are so limited to them joyntly for their lives, so long as Richard and Anne shall have issue mala of their bodies living. Secondly, the estate to them was to their own use, and that was not joyntly but successive. And if any of those uses were in esae at that time of the fine, then they fall out clearly with the plaintiff. I conceive that both their estates were in them. First) concerning the first remainder limited to their joynt use, in which it is to be considered; where the not setting forth of the lands makes it contingent. It is a strange caie. That if the directions for the setting out had been observed, that then there might have been a present estate setled upon a subsequent condition, and not upon a precedent condition. Where it ought to be agreed, when tha indenture is made with a covenant to levy a fine, that no use will rise before the fine. Coment. 302. Then although some things ought to be done before the uses will rise. If those BBTLEY.99. THE KING V. THE BISHOP OF CANTERBURY 873 things bad been done, the use ought to be raised. For certum est quod certum reddi potest, 17 E. 4, 1. When contracts are upon incertaiuties, when the thing uncertain is become certain ; when the indenture was sealed, that made a contingent use in the limitation, but when the thing had been done, it shall make a perfect use in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Lord Mountjoy's Case
...as Sir Tho. Gawdy said, whereas the copyholds ought to have (a) Co. Lit. 45. a. 96. a. 142. a. 9 Co. 30 a. 47. a. 4 Co. 66. b. Lane 51. Hetley 98. Post. 6. a. 2 Brown. 336. (b) 3 Co. 59. b. 60. a. Mo. 199. 10 Co. 59. a. b. 60 b. 61 b. * Co. Lit. 45. a. Cr. El. 207. 1 And. 244. Carter 13. 16......
-
Carwardine v Carwardine
...the remainders to the heirs of the body of the husband by the wife, it was antecedent to the estate tail, and the fine could not reach it. Hetley, 98. A difference is laid down between a collateral use that does not depend on other estates and an estate limited by way of remainder. In the c......
-
Lynne against Coningham
...against the party who ma le the rescous, but against the sheriff. And he cited Fitzher. Nat. B,rev. 1,6 E. 4, 3, where the difference is, HETLEY.98. LYNNE V. CONINGHAM 371 [96] II an arrest be made upon a mean process, and a rescous made, there the sheriff is not reeponsable. Because that t......