Timewell v Perkins
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 December 1740 |
| Date | 15 December 1740 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 464
AT THE ROLLS, BEFORE MR. JUSTICE WILLIAM FORTESCUE.
See King v. George, 1876, 4 Ch. D. 440.
[101] Case 93.-SuiTON versus stone and Others, December 10, 1740, at the Rolls, before Mr. Justice Wright. A copyhold surrendered to the husband for life, to the wife for life, remainder to the heirs of the bodies of husband and wife, remainder in fee to the survivor, gives to the wife, who survived, an estate-tail only, after possibility of issue extinct, and the estate-tail vests in the heirs of the husband and wife. A surrender of a copyhold estate to the husband for life, to 'the wife for life, and to the heirs of the bodies of the husband and wife, remainder in fee to the survivor, did not vest an absolute estate-tail in the wife, who survived, but only gave her an estate-tail after possibility of issue extinct, and the estate-tail vests in the person who is the heir of the body both of husband and wife.(l) In the cases of surrenders of copyhold estates the same construction must take place as in all other conveyances at law; and so held in Idle versus Coke, Holt's Cases, 164 (1 P. W. 70, S. 0. See Fisher v. Wigg, 1 Cox's P. W. 14, n. 1. Rigden v. Vallier, 2 Ves. 257), by the whole Court, that a limitation of uses in a copyhold surrender must be construed by the same rules, as if it were a limitation in any other conveyance at common law ; and that the intent of the party is not sufficient, as in a will. (Copyhold estates are not within the statute of Uses, 27 Hen. 8, c. 10 ; Cro. Car. 44 ; 2 Ves. 257.) Where there is a clear tenancy in tail, there is no occasion for the remainder-man's being a party to a bill of foreclosure; but if there is an express estate for life, the remainder-man ought to be a party. A mortgagee who is not in possession, may bring his bill against a mortgagor before admittance for a decree of foreclosure, and after he has obtained such a decree, may bring his ejectment for the possession of the mortgaged premisses. The mortgagee here has brought his bill against a mortgagor to compel him as tenant in tail to make a good title by suffering a recovery. (In Tourle v. Rand, 2 Bro. Cha. Rep. 650, Lord Thurlow observed, that if a tenant in tail mortgage, the covenant for further assurance may be taken hold on as a plank. See Edwards v. Applebee, in note, ibid. 652. Pye v. Daubuz, 3 Bro. Cha. Rep. 595.) I do not apprehend, said Mr. Justice'Wright, that this court will point...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watson v Arundel
...Jun. 683, 687. Amphett v. Parke 2 R. & My. 221. Kellett v. Kellett 3 Dow. p. C. 254. Denn v. GaskinENR 1 Cow. 657. Timewell v. PerkinsENR 2 Atk. 102. Evans v. CrosbieENR 15 Sim. 600. Windus v. WindusENR 6 De G. M. & G. 562, 563. Maugham v, MasonENR 1 V. & B. 410, 416. Fitch v. WeberENR 6 Ha......
-
Davenport v Coltman
...Rep. 214); Wilkinson v. Merryland (Cro. Car. 447); 18 SIM. 897. DAVENPORT V. COLTMAN 1263 Shaw v. Bull (12 Mod. 5.92); Timewell v. Perkins (2 Atk. 102); Bebb v, Penoyre (11 East, 160);. Henderson v. Farbridge (1 Russ. 479); Doe v. Rout (7 Taunt. 79); Doe v. Dring (2 Mau. & Selw. 448); Hogan......
-
Ambatielos v Anton Jurgens Margarine Works
...Cas. 544, 581: 97 L. T. Rep. 812 ; (1908) A. C. 16; Slukeley v. Butler, Eobart 168; Dakin's Case, 2 Win. Saund. 678 Timewell v. Perkins, 2 Atk. 102; Owners of Steamship Magnhild v. Mclnlyre Brothers and Co., 15 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 230; 124 L. T. Rep. 771 ; (1921) 2 K. B. 97 ; Aktieselskabet ......
-
Bowyer v Blair
...Wms. 149. Doe d. Thorley v. ThorleyENR 10 East, 438. Wilson v. Major 11 Ves. 205. Briden v. Hewlett 2 Myl. & K. 90. Timewell v. PerkinsENR 2 Atk. 102. Comfield v. GilbertENR 3 East. 516. Berry v. Usher 11 Ves. 87. Helling v. Yeud 2 New R. 214. Johnson v. TelfordENR 1 Russ. & M. 244. Doe d. ......