Webber v Stanley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 April 1864 |
| Date | 21 April 1864 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 143 E.R. 1301
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 33 L. J. C. P. 217; 10 L. T. 417; 10 Jur. N. S. 657; 12 W. R. 833. Applied, Smith v. Ridgway, 1866, L. R. 1 Ex. 332; Pelley v. Dodds, L. R. 2 Eq. 823. Referred to, Cosby v. Millington, 1869, 38 L. J. C. R. 376; Hardwick v. Hardwick, 1873, L. R. 16 Eq. 175. Applied, King v. King, 1884, 13 L. R. I. R. 539; In re Cleveland's Settled Estates, [1893] 3 Ch. 251; In re Seal, [1894] 1 Ch. 321. For proceedings in Chancery see Stanley v. Stanley, 2 J. & H. 491.
webber . stanley. April 21st, 1864. [S. C. 33 L. J. C. P. 217 ; 10 L. T. 417 ; 10 Jur. N. S. C57 ; 12 W. R. 833. Applied, Smit/t v. Ridgiuau, 1866, L. E. 1 Ex. 332; Pulley v. Docltls, L. R. '1 Eq. 823. Referred to, Cosby v. MiUincjtvn, 1S69, 38 L. J. C. -R. 376; Ifardwick v. Hardwick, 1873, L.'E. 16 Eq. 175. Applied, Kiugv. King, 1884, 13 L. K. I. R. 539; In re Cleveland's Settled Estates, [1893] 3 Ch. 251 ; In re Seal, [1894] 1 Oh. 321. For proceedings in Chancery see Stanley v. Stanley, 2 J. & H. 491.] 1. For the purpose of construing a will, the court must be informed of the circumstances surrounding the testator when making his will-such as his family status and the nature of his property. Extraneous evidence of these matters is therefore admissible.-2. One T. A. .S., being seised of an estate in Wales worth about 46,0001. a year, and also of freehold estates partly in Hants and partly in Wilts (worth about 45001. a year) which were known as his "Tedworth estate," by his will in 1857,-after giving certain annuities (including one of 501. for life to his valet A.), which he charged upon "all his lands and hereditaments at or near Tedworth,"-devised to his widow in fee "all his lands and hereditaments at or near Tedworth aforesaid."-The widow, by her will, dated in 1858, after disposing of her Welsh estate, subject to a charge of 40,0001. to be raised thereout, which sum she declared that she intended to be "an addition to her Tedworth estates thereinafter devised," proceeded as follows,-"I give and devise my mansion-house at Tedworth, in the county of Hants, and all my manors, farms, lands, tenements, and hereditaments in the comity of Iltmt-x, dwixtd to me hi/ the. utid will of my sa'id lute husband (subject, to the annuities charged thereon by such will, and xubjeet to an additional or further annuity of 501. per annum lo be payable to A., the mid of my late husband, duriwj his life, an hereinafter mentioned), and all other hereditaments in the saiil munty of Hants of or to which 1 shall be seised or entitled, or as to or over which I shall have a diaposing power by my will at my death (all which hereditament* in the county of Hants are hereinafter described or referred to a.s1 my Tedworth estate)," To the use of her nephew, the defendant, for life, &c.-She then proceeded to give the tenant for life the power of charging " her said Tedworth estate " for jointures and provisions for younger children to a limited extent. Throughout the will the testatrix spoke of the property she was dealing with as "my said Tedworth estate:" and she directed that the mansion-house and grounds should be kept up in th^ir then presept state, and made the furniture, &c., heir-looms. Hhe then directed ^hat the 40,0001. charged upon the Welsh property should be laid out in the purchase of freehold lands, &c., near to or adjmnimj her mid Tedworth estate, ur elaeiohere in the said kaunty of Hants, or in some adjoining county or uounties, and charged the additional annuity to the valet A. upon " all her hereditaments at or near Tjed worth (a) Roberts v. Smith, 2 Hurlst. & N. 213, and Mellon v. Uluiw, 1 Best & Smith, 437. 1802 WEBBER V. STANLEY 1 C. B. N. S.) 699. aforesaid."-The mansion-house at Tedworth and ;i portion only of the lands forming the Tedworth estate (of the annual value of about 20001.) were in the county of Hants; the residue (of the annual value of about 25001.) being in the adjoining county of Wilts. There was no boundary, either natural or artificial, to separate the two counties ; and some of the farms were partly in Hants and partly in Wilts, the county boundary in some instances dividing fields, and even separating cottages from their gardens. The mansion house of Tedworth was largely disproportionate to the Hants part of the property, even when increased by the legacy of 40,000. : -Held that, as there was a property which every part of the description "my mansion-house at Tedworth, in the county of Hants, and all my manors, farms, lands, &c., in the county of Hants," fitted, and on which every word had full effect, the devise must be limited to so much of the land as was locally situated within the county of Hants,-there being no intention expressed of giving property situated out of the county of Hants. This was an action of ejectment brought by the plaintiff' to recover possession of certain lands in the county of Wilts, which he claimed as heir-at-law of Mrs. Assheton Smith, deceased. [699] The cause was tried before Willes, J., at the last Summer Assizes for the county of Wilts. The material facts were as follows:- In and prior to the year 1774, Thomas Assheton Smith, then of Tidworth, otherwise Tedworth House, in the county of Hants, was seised in fee-simple of the manor of South Tidworth, in the couuty of Hants, and the manor of North Tidworth, in the county of Wilts, and of various freehold farms, lands, tenements, hereditaments, and premises, in. the county of Hants, which comprised with the glebe-land there, the whole of the parish of Lower Tidworth, and of various freehold farms, lands, and premises in the county of Wilts, comprising a portion of the parish of Upper1 Tidworth ; and which manors and hereditaments in the counties of Hants and Wilts adjoined each other, and, together with certain premises held by the said Thomas Assheton Smith for terms of years, and which adjoined the said freehold premises, formed and were known as " the Tedworth estate." The said Thomas Assheton Smith was desirous of adding to the said Tedworth estate; and, in order thereto, he in or about the year 17(JG purchased a farm forming portion o the parish of Upper Tidworth, in the county of Wilts, and laid the same to the Ted-[700]-worth estate, and the same was known as and formed a portion of the said Tedworth estate. The said Thomas Assheton Smith continued from the period aforesaid down to the time of his death seised and possessed of the said Tedworth estate, consisting of the particulars aforesaid ; and the said Thomas Assheton Smith died in the year 1828, ;md was succeeded in the entirety of the said estate as well freehold as leasehold by his son Thomas Assheton Smith. The said Thomas Assheton Smith the son became desirous to add to the said Tedworth eatate all such manors and hereditaments in the parish of Upper Tidworth as had not theretofore formed part of the Tedworth estate : and, in or about the year 1833, the said Thomas Assheton Smith (the son) purchased the manor and estate of Tidworth Zouch, forming part of the parish of Upper Tidworth, in the county of Wilts, and laid the same to the Tedworth estate ; and thenceforth the whole of the lands forming the parish of Upper Tidworth, in the county of Wilts, with the exception of the glebe-land there, was known as and formed part of the Tedworth estate. The said Thomas Assheton Smith (the son) continued from the periods aforesaid seised and possessed of the said estates as well freehold as leasehold, and which, as aforesaid, were together known as and formed the Tedworth estate, down to and at the time of his death. The freehold portion of the Tedworth estate situate in the county of Hants consists of the manor of South Tedworth, the mansion-house called Tedworth House, with the park thereto, and about 3500 acres of land, all of which, except the mansion-house and park, are of the present annual value of 16501. or thereabouts ; and the leasehold portion of the Tedworth estate situate in the [701] county of Hants consists of lands in the parish of Sh'ipton adjoining the lauds in the parish of Lower Tidworth, and which are of the annual value of 2871 or thereabouts. The freehold portion of the Tedworth estate situate in the county of Wilts consists of the manor of North Tidworth, the 16 C. B. (N. 8.) 702. WEBBER V. STANLEY 1303 manor of Tidworth Zouch, and about 3054 acres of land of the annual value of 16001. or thereabouts ; and the leasehold portion of the Ted worth estate situate in the county of Wilts consists of certain tithes of the annual value of 9501. and 651. respectively, or thereabouts : and the total annual value of the said Tedworth estate, freehold and leasehold, is 45001. or thereabouts. The mansion-house of Tedworth is of great extent, with large gardens and pleasure-grounds attached thereto, arid would require an expenditure of more than 60001. a year properly to keep it up in its present condition. The only manor iu the county of Hants which formed p;irt of the Tedworth estate is the manor of South Tidworth, with the exception of a property called Doyley Wood, consisting of about 650 acres of wood land, hereafter mentioned. The whole of the lands where the counties of Hants and Wilts unite at Tedworth are of freehold tenure. No natural or artificial boundary has within living memory existed between Upper Tidworth and Lower Tidworth, or any part thereof, nor between the counties of Hants and Wilts where the sazne unite at Tidworth : but the two parishes of Upper Tidworth and Lower Tidworth have for several years past been treated in many respects as one pariah,-having one school for the two parishes. The; hinds on the boundary line of the counties of Wilts and Hants at Tidworth have for many years been and now are intermixed and are held together under the same tenancies at entire rents, and [702] several cottages on the freehold portion of the Tedworth estate are in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keogh v Keogh
...KEOGH and KEOGH. Webber v. StanleyENR 16 C. B. N. S. 698. Morrell v. FisherENR 4 Ex. 591. Slingsby v. GraingerENR 7 H. L. C. 273. West v. LawdayENR 11 H. L. C. 375. Roe v. VernonENR 5 East, 51. Doe v. ParkinENR 5 Taun. 321. Pedley v. DoddsELR L. R. 2 Eq. 819. Boyle v. MulhollandUNK 10 Ir. C......
-
King v King
...3 Taunt. 147. Doc v. Lyford 4 M. & Sel. 550. Stone v. GreeningENR 13 Sim. 390. Hall v. Fisher 1 Col. 47. Webber v. StanleyENR 16 C. B. (N. S.) 698. Smith v. RidgwayELR L. R. 1 Ex. 331. Ricketts v. Turquand 1 H. L. Cas. 472. Doe v. OxendenENR 4 Dow, 65. Lee v. HeadENR 1 K. & J. 620. Ford v. ......
-
Corballis v Corballis
...he cited Bothainley v. Sherson (11). (1) 18 Ves. 463. (7) 10 Sim. 299. (2) 30 Beay. 554. (8) 13 Sim. 390. (3) L. R. 4 Eq. 37. (9) 16 C. B. (N. S.) 698. (4) 14 Beay. 197. (10) 1 Coll. 47. (5) L. R. 17 Eq. 450. (11) L. R. 20 Eq. 304. (6) See report, 13 Ir. Eq. R. 338. LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [......
-
Jennings v Jennings
...v. StanleyENR 2 J. & H. 491. Smith v. RidgwayELR L. R. 1 Ex. 331. Strevens v. Bayley 8 Ir. C. L. Rep. 410. Webber v. StanleyENR 16 C. B. (N. S) 698. Ricketts v. TurquandENR 1 H. L. C. 472. West v. LawdayENR 11 H. L. C. 385. Keogh v. Keogh Ir. R. 8 Eq. 179, see pp. 196, et seq. Will — Devise......