Wheeler v Howell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 March 1857 |
| Date | 04 March 1857 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 69 E.R. 1079
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Discussed, Smith v. Hill, 1878, 9 Ch. D. 143.
Will. Charge of Legacies on Real Estate. Residuary Devise. Statute of Limitations. 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, s. 42. Annuity. Arrears. Construction. Maintenance. Power to Raise. Implication of, From Context.
[198] wheeler v. howell. March 2, 4, 1857. [Discussed, Smith v. Hill, 1878, 9 Ch. D. 143.] Will. Charge of Legacies on Real Estate. Residuary Devise. Statute of Limitations. 3 & 4 Will. 4, c... 27, s. 42. Annuity. Arrears. Construction. Maintenance. Power to Eaise. . Implication of, from Context. The principle of the decisions in reference to the question whether a charge on real estate is affected by reason of a residuary devise is the same in the case of legacies as in that of debts, and is this, that where residuary real and personal property is given in one mixed fund to the executor, who is to pay debts 'and legacies, there legacies as well as debts are charged upon the real estate. Testator, after bequeathing a legacy, and expressly charging part of his real estate with an annuity to the legatee, devised and bequeathed all the rest, residue and remainder of air and singular his real and personal estate (subject to his debts, funeral and testamentary expenses) to trustees, whom he also appointed executors, upon certain trusts. Held, following Francis v. Clemow (Kay, 435), that the legacy was well charged upon the real estate. Arrears of an annuity charged upon a reversionary interest in land, held recoverable 1080 WHEELEE V. HOWELL 3K.&J. 199. more than six years after the same became payable, the statute 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, s. 42, having no application so long as the interest is reversionary. Power by sale or mortgage to raise money for maintenance implied from an unfinished clause in a will, purporting to provide for the event of a deficiency of funds for that purpose. William Davies, by his will, dated 1846, bequeathed to the Plaintiff the sum of £50, also an annuity of £52 during her life, which annuity he thereby expressly charged upon all his real estate in the parish of Churchstoke, in the county of Montgomery ; and, after directing the annuity to be paid half-yearly, and to be recoverable in like manner with rent reserved upon common demises, he proceeded as follows :-" And as to all the rest, residue, and remainder of all and singular my real and personal estate, whatsoever and wheresoever situate (subject nevertheless to the payment of all my just debts, funeral and testamentary expenses, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Watson v Arundel
...1 Cro. 368. Wind v. JekylENR 1 P. Wms. 574. Greville v. BrowneENR 7 H. L. C. 689. Francis v. ClemowENR Kay, 435. Wheeler v. HowellENR 3 K. & J. 198. Kidney v. Coussmaker 12 Ves. 136. Collins v. Wakeman 2 Ves. JUn. 683. Flint v. WarrenENR 14 Sim. 554. Flint v. WarrenENR 16 Sim. 124. Amphlett......
-
Bright v Larcher
...& C. 200); Adams v. Barry ò(2 Coll. 290); Eavenscroft v. Frisby (1 Coll. 16); Bumll v. Lord Egremtmt (7 Beav. 205) ; PFheeler v. Hawell (3 K. & J. 198); Snow v. Booth (2 K. & J. 132). On the question as to the absence of a legal personal representative of the testator, they contended that, ......
-
Lewis v Duncombe
...waste was not bound to sue until his remainder fell into possession. But the decision of Vice-Chancellor Wood in Wlieder v. Howell (3 K. & J. 198), is express that the statute (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, s. 42) "does not apply to arrears of an annuity charged upon a reversionary interest in land......
-
Gyett v Williams
...real and personal estate, a charge is necessarily implied; Bench v. Biles (4 Madd. 187), Francis v. Clemow (Kay, 435), Wheeler v. Howett (3 K. & J. 198). Mr. Willcock, Q.C., and Mr. Whately, in the same interest. Greville v. Browne (7 H. L. Cas. 689) is quite conclusive as to the charge of ......