Uvedale v Uvedale
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 July 1744 |
| Date | 20 July 1744 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 871
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Case 43.-The attorney general versus milner, July 18, 1744, at the Bolls. As the legacy to E. L. under the will of A. S. was to be paid out of a real estate, and he is dead before the contingency happened, on which he was to take, this case is within the general rule, and ought to sink in favour of the heir at law. (Prowse v. Abingdon, ante, 1 vol. 482. Van v. Clarke, ante, 1 vol. 512. Boycott v. Cotton, ante, 1 vol. 555.) Anne Smith by her will, amongst other legacies, " gives to three trustees, eight " thousand pounds upon trust, that they should dispose thereof in the purchase of " lands of inheritance in fee-simple, to be settled to the use of her grandson Thomas " Milner, and the heirs of his body; and for default of such issue, directed the trustees " to convey the same to the Drapers Company, upon trust that they should within " three months after the estate should be conveyed to them, by mortgage, or sale of " some part thereof, raise, and pay to Edward Lynch, her nephew, two thousand " pounds, which she bequeathed to him, in case of the death of her grandson without " issue (Note : These words in Italics are omitted in the Register's book, though it " is evident, that the chief point in the case was determined upon this part of the will); " and that they should dispose of so much of the rents of such estate, after payment of " the two thousand pounds, as [113] should be necessary for purchasing a convenient " piece of ground for a charity, and till the purchase could be made, the interest of " the money was to go as the profits of the land: and by her codicil taking notice she " had given six thousand pounds to the charity, she thereby gives only five thousand " pounds." Edward Lynch died the 29th of April 1738, and one Hill was administrator to him. (Note: " There was a former decree in this cause, which declared as to the " £8000 that it was to be considered as a legacy of £8000 with respect to Milner the " grandson ; but in case he should die without issue and without aliening it, then as " between the relators and Edward Lynch, it was to be considered as a legacy of £7000. " After this decree the suit abated by the death of Edward Lynch.") Thomas Milner the grandson died in May 1742, under the age of twenty-one, and without issue. The question now was, Whether this legacy of two thousand pounds was lapsed, as Edward Lynch died before the contingency happened, or whether it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lechmere v Brasier
...sale is prevented by the parol demurring, see Scarth v. Cotton, Gas. Temp. Talb. 198. Chaplin v. Chaplin, 3 P. W. 368. Uvedale v. Uvedale, 3 Atk. 117. Mould v. Williamson, 2 Cox, 386. In Powell v. Robins, 7 Ves. 209, 211, the doctrine seems to have been applied where the infant was a devise......
-
Price v Carver
...the contrary; Hargrave v. Timlal (1 Bro. C. C. 136, n.), Mould v. Williamson (2 Cox, 386), Pope v. Gwi/n (2 Dick. 683), Uvedale v. Uvedale (3 Atk. 117). The proper form of the decree in this case will be to direct an account of what is. due for principal, interest, and costs ; to declare th......
-
Heming v Archer
...be made. note.-See Noel v. Weston, Cooper, 138; Bullock v. Bullock, 1 Jac. & W. 603; Morris v. Clarkson, 3 Swan. p. 560; Uvedalev. Uvedale, 3 Atk. 117 ; Blatch v. Agnis, 1 Atk. 420; 2 Sug. Vendors, 193 (10th ed.). English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 384 ROLLS COURT Heming and Archer S. C. Ju......
-
Powell v Robins
...where the estate comes to the heir by descent. See 2 Ch. Ca. 164 ; For. 156, 198. Chaplin v. Chaplin, 3 P. Will. 367. Uvedale v. Uvedale, 3 Atk. 117. Tuclcfield v. Buller, Amb. 197 ; where the infant was remainder-man in tail, with remainder in fee (as appears in Mr. Leaves's Manuscripts) t......