Uvedale v Halfpenny
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1723 |
| Date | 01 January 1723 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 24 E.R. 677
AT THE ROLLS.
Cfcse 35.-uvedale versus halfpenny. [1723.]' At the Rolls. 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 718, pi. 4. In a marriage-settlement, a term for years for securing younger children's portions is by mistake, made subsequent to the estate-tail limited to the sons; this helped in equity. In a settlement the lands were limited to the husband for life, remainder, as to part, to the wife for life,' remainder of the whole to the first, &c., son in tail male, remainder 678 UVEDALE V. HALFPENNY 3 P. 'WHS. 152. to trustees for 500 years, to raise portions for younger sons and daughters of the marriage ; and the trust of the term was declared to be, to secure' maintenances for the younger sons and daughters from the husband's death, and to gay the portions of the younger sons at twenty-one, and of the daughters at twenty-one or marriage, which should first happen. There was also a covenant to surrender copyhold lands to trustees, in trust by rents, issues, and profits, to raise the said portions for the younger sons and daughters of the marriage, at such times and ages as aforesaid, and as an additional security for the same. A bill was brought to rectify the mistake in the settlement, in [152] placing the term after the limitation in tail to the sons; whereas the term should have come in before such limitation in tail. The husband was dead leaving several daughters, one of whom was married to the plaintiff Uvedale ; and the eldest son as to such part of the premises of which he was tenant in tail in possession, had suffered a common recovery. Objected for the defendant: what is asked by the bill is, that; the Court should make a new and different settlement, which it is not in the power, of the Court to do, especially, in this case, where there is a competent provision for the daughters and younger children out of the copyhold estate; and if the term should take place before the limitation to the sons, it would greatly distress the eldesj; son and heir. Master of the Rolls. I would not destroy the settlement, but set it right, according to the intention and agreement of the parties; and by the declaration of the trust of the term, the intention and agreement of the parties manifestly appears to be, that the land should be charged with the payment of portions for thf younger sons and daughters at certain ages, viz. for the sons at twenty-one, and for the daughters at twenty-one or marriage, and maintenance to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thew (R & T) Ltd v Reeves
...and "tenant" or "plaintiff" and "defendant", see Hamilton v. Wilson (1851) 8 Bingham 10. It has transposed whole provisions, see Uvedale v. Halfpenny (1723) 2 Peere Williams 151. It has corrected a misnomer or misdescription by giving the right name or the right description, see Whittam v. ......
-
Fitzgerald v Fitzgerald
...Re Whiston's SettlementELR [1894] 1 Ch. 661. Shelly's CaseUNK 1 Rep. 93 (b). Taggart v. Taggart 1 Sch. & Lef. 84. Uvedale v. HalfpennyENR 2 P. Wms. 151. Van Grutten v. Foxwell [1897] App. Cas. 677. Wheeler v. DukeENR 1 C. & M. 210. VOL. /.] CHANCERY DIVISION. 477 FITZGERALD v. FITZGERALD. M......
-
Countess Dowager of Shelburne and John Hamilton Fitzmaurice, an Infant, only Son of the Honourable Thomas Fitzmaurice and Lady Mary his Wife (two of Defendants), Plaintiffs; Morough Earl of Inchiquin, and Mary Countess of Orkney and Inchiquin his Wife; and said Thomas Fitzmaurice and Lady Mary his Wife, and Others, Defendants
...plain meaning of the words, or at least to explain doubtful words.- Eden v. Lord Bute, 7 Bro. Parlt. Ca. 204-445. Uvedale v. Halfpenny, 2 P. Wms. 151. Goman v. Salisbury, \ Vern 240. Pitcairn v. Ogbourne, 2 Ves. 375, and the cases there cited. Legal v. Miller, 2 Ves. 299. Baker v. Paine, I ......
-
Rogers v Earl
...and so it ought to be read in the case before me. Coriton v. Helliar, Harvey v. Harvey, 24th of November 1739, and Uvedale v. Halfpenny (2 P. Wms. 151, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 718, S. C.) were cited in the course of the cause. [Mews' Dig. Settlement, III, A, i, b; 4.] English Reports Citation: 21 E......