Williams v Jekyl. Elliot v Jekyl
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 November 1755 |
| Date | 08 November 1755 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 28 E.R. 434
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
williams v. jekyl. elliot v. jbkyl, Nov. 8, 1755. S. P. 1 Scho. &. Lefr. 281.-Lease for three lives to A. her executors, &c. (The interest in estates " pur auter vie," to a person, " his executors, &c." beyond the debts, belongs to those who are entitled to the personal estate, and the executor was held a trustee for the residuary legatee. Yide Ripley v. Waterworth, 7 Yes. 425, &c., and 450, 551.) A. assigns all right to the use of B. for life, and afterwards of his issue; and for want of such issue to the use of B. her executors, &c. The whole vests in the issue of B.; and " issue " means " children " ; and A. 's executor, who was a special occupant, cannot claim against it. (S. P. Campbell v. Sandys, 1 Scho. & Lefr. Eep.. 281.) A freehold lease for three lives was granted to Elizabeth Elliot, her executors, administrators, and assigns. She for valuable consideration makes an assignment of the premises, and all her right, title, and interest, in and to the same, to a trustee to the use of her son John Williams for and during the term of his natural life; and from and after his decease to the use of his issue lawfully begotten; and for want of such issue, to the use of Elizabeth Elliot, her executors and administrators, during the residue of the term. , John 'Williams died leaving a son and a daughter; the latter died soon after her father, at six years of age. The; present question was between the son and Alexander Elliot, .the executor and residuary legatee of Elizabeth Elliott. . . .:':.' [682] For plaintiff the. son. The objection made is, that this is to be "compared to the limitation of a fee-simple ;by a deed, in which .issue is not a word of limitation,, but must be a word of purchase; and consequently the issue, the son, must take for life only; and then there must be a remainder over to Elisabeth Elliot to take after 2 ve. sen. M . elliot t). jekyl his death. But there are several answers thereto. First, this is an agreement for valuable consideration mentioned, for which Elizabeth Elliot parts .with this to those uses; next it is a conveyance by way of trust, tiot an use executed; there is no doubt of the meaning. She meant to part with, and John Williams, meant to purchase, an estate for life to himself with a general limitation to his issue indefinitely. The nature of this property is a descendible freehold, and his heir take's it by'description.and designation as a special occupant, not by descent; apd though the heir or heir of the body takes it as special occupant, it is not like a fee-simple, but goes all along upon the occupancy; so would it be, if it was limited.to the heirs of the body. But as there cannot be a common recovery of such estates, if they could not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ripley v Waterworth. [HIGH COURT of CHANCERY]
...Burron (3 P. Will. 262), Oldham v. Pickering (2 Salk. 464 ; Garth. 376), St. John's College v. Fleming (2 Vern. 320), Williams v. Jekyl (2 Ves. sen. 681). The Attorney General [Perceval], Mr. Fonblanque, and Mr. Whishaw,ior the Report. The doctrine of the Court, upon the point arising on th......
-
Attorney General v Bright
...of years to A. for life, and afterwards to her issue, upon A.'s death, was held to vest in the issue as purchasers. In Elliot v. Jekyl (2 Ves. sen. 681), where there was an assignment of an interest of a lease to the use of A. for life, and afterwards of his issue, and for want of such issu......
-
Brenan v Boyne
...Keegan v. Mowlds 8 Ir. Jur., N. S. 172. Castle v. DoddENR Cro. Jac. 200. M'Clintock v. Irvine 10 Ir. Chan. Rep. Williams v. JekylENR 2 Ves. sen. 681. Crozier v. Crozier 13 Dru. & War. 373. Doe v. Robinson 8 B. & Cr. 296. Lamphier v. Drapes 14 Ir. Chan. Rep. 33. Bayley v. O'Connell 9 Ir. Jur......
-
Lessee Thomas Dawson v Francis Dawson and Another
...Bench Lessee THOMAS DAWSON and FRANCIS DAWSON and another. Campbell v. Sandys 1 Sch. & Lef. 281. Elliott v. JekylENR 2 Ves. Sen. 681. Atkinson v. BakerENR 4 T. R. 229. Jeff v. RobinsonUNKENR 2 M. & R. 249; S. C. 8 B. & C. 296. Allen v. Allen 2 Dr. & War. 307. Crozier v. Crozier 3 Dr. & War.......