Wilson v Earl of Darlington
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 February 1785 |
| Date | 16 February 1785 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 29 E.R. 1114
AT THE ROLLS, SIR L. KENYON.
wilson versus earl op darlington. At the Bolls, Sir L. Kenyan. Feb. 16, 1785. A. seized of a remainder in fee expectant on an estate tail in N., limited the same to himself for life, remainder to trustees for a term of 99 years, on trust amongst other things to raise and pay such sums of money, and to such persons as A. should by deed or will appoint; and he reserved to himself a general power of revocation of all the uses thereby limited. A. afterwards by deed appointed that when the said estate tail should be spent, and the term come into possession, the trustee should raise 2000 for W., and covenanted that if the estate tail should be spent in his own lifetime, then he would pay the 2000 unto W.; but if not till after his death, and he should revoke the said term of 99 years, then that his heirs, executors, &c., should within a year after the estate tail, should be spent, pay the 2000 to W. with a proviso, that if 1ST. should suffer -a recovery of the premises, and bar the remainder in fee, the 2000 should not be payable. A. afterwards by will revoked all the uses of the first settlement " to all intents and purposes whatsoever, as if the same had never been limited.'" And thereby devised all the said premises, " subject nevertheless to payment of the said, sum of 2000 to W." in manner therein mentioned. A. died and afterwards N. died. The 2000 remained a charge on the devised premises after the death of N., notwithstanding the revocation of the term, and the personal estate of A. was not applicable to it. The question in this cause was, whether a sum of 2000 granted by the late Earl of Bath to George Wilson, and passing by the will of the said George Wilson to plaintiffs, should be raised out of the real estates, mentioned in the bill, or should be paid out of the personal estate of Lord Bath. By indentures of lease and release bearing date 8th and 9th of August 1743, made between the Earl and Countess of Bath, of the first part; Lord Viscount Pulteney,-the son, and Henry Pulteney, brother of the said Earl, of the second part; Samuel Sandys and Sir John Eushout, of the third part; and Richard Mead and Robert Ord, of the fourth part; reciting that Henry, late Earl of Bradford, did by will, dated the 8th of May 1730, devise all his manors, lands, tenements, and hereditaments whatsoever, to John Hill, Hugh Briggs, and George Middleton, and their heirs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ibbetson v Ibbetson
...parte Earl Digby (Jac. Eep. 235. See the Lord Chancellor's judgment on the second point in the case, p. 239); Wilson v. Earl of Darlington (1 Cox, 172) ; Scott \. Reecher (5 Madd. 96). [213] Mr. Wigram, Mr. G. Richards, Mr. Loftus Wigram and Mr. Walford, for the personal representatives of ......