Wyld v Lewis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1738 |
| Date | 01 January 1738 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 276
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Parker v. Birks, 1854, 1 K. & J. 161; Blinston v. Warburton, 1856, 2 K. & J. 402.
[432] Case 196.-wyld v. lewis. Easter Term, 1738. [See Parker v. Birks, 1854, 1 K. & J. 161; Blinston v. Warburton, 1856, 2 K. & J. 402.] S. C. post, 3 vol. 785, cited. B. W. by his will devised to his wife Elizabeth, all his lands, &c.t not settled in jointure, and then says, if it shall happen that she shall have no son nor daughter by me, for want of such issue, the said premisses to return to my brother (the plaintiff) if he shall be then living, and his heirs for ever, paying to A. and B. 150 within a year after Elisabeth's death. Decreed to be an estate tail in Elizabeth, because where preceding words are proper to create an estate tail, the legal operation of them cannot be controuled by subsequent provisions. See Sonday's case, 9 Co. 1276. Ban field v. Popham, 1 P. W. 56. Blackborn v. Edgley, 1 P. W. 605. Evans v. Astley, 3 Burr. 1570. See also Robinson v. Robinson, post, 3 vol. 736.) Richard Wyld, by his will, " devised to his wife Elizabeth, now the wife of the de-" fendant, all his lands, &c., not settled in jointure generally," and then follow these words, " If it shall happen that my said wife Elizabeth shall have no son nor daughter " by me begotten on the body of the said Elizabeth and for want of such issue, then the " said premisses to return to my brother John Wyld, if he shall be then living, and " his heirs for ever, only paying to his two brothers (A. and B.) the sum of 150 within " one year after the decease of the said Elizabeth." Elizabeth had a daughter born after the death of the testator, and since dead. The 1 ATK. 433. WYLD V. LEWIS 277 bill was now brought by John Wyld, the brother of the testator, and who is likewise his heir at law, to restrain the defendants from committing waste ; and the question was, What estate Elisabeth took by the will, whether in tail, or for life only 1 Mr. Brown for the plaintiff insisted she took for life only, that the words in the will (if she has no son or daughter) would certainly not raise an estate tail by implication, and the subsequent words (for want of such issue) will not enlarge the estate, the word (such) restraining the word (issue) to mean only such son or daughter ; that the word issue received such a restrained construction for the same reason, in the case of Popham v. Banfield, Salic. 236, for there the devise was to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robb and Reid v The Right Rev Bishop Dorrian
...ROBB AND REID and THE RIGHT REV. BISHOP DORRIAN. Mellish v. MellishENR 2 B. & C. 520. Garrod v. GarrodENR 2 B. & Ad. 87. Wyld v. LewisENR 1 Atk. 432. Jones v. DaviesENR 4 B. & Ad. 43. Smart v. Prujean 6 Ves. 560. Slywright and Page's Case 1 Leon v. 166. Wilson v. ShortUNK 6 Ha. 366. The Att......
-
Coltsman v Coltsman
...v. PattisonENR 16 East, 221. Uthwatt v. BryantENR 6 Taunt. 317. Randall v. TuchinENR 6 Taunt. 141. BatesENR 16 East, 221. Wyld v. LewisENR 1 Atk. 432. Lee's caseENR 1 Leon. 285. Walter v. Drew Comyn, 372. Forth v. ChapmanENR 1 P. Wms. 663; S. C., Tudor's L. C. on Real Property, 552. Daintry......
-
Blinston v Warburton
...C. B. 876), Doe d. Jones v. Davies (4 B. & Ad. 43), Greenwood v. Yerdon (1 Kay & J. 74). Mr. Horsey, for the trustees, cited Wyld v. Lewis (1 Atk. 432). Mr. Rolt, Q.C., in reply. Judgment was reserved. vice-chancellor Sir W. page wood. The question in this case is whether the gift by the wi......
-
Ranelagh v Ranelagh
...Eden, 153); Davidson v. Dallas (14 Ves., 576); Barlow v. Satter (17 Ves., 479); Doe dem. Watts v. Wainewiight (5 T. R, 427); WyU v. Lewis (1 Atk., 432); Hortm v. Norton (Cm. Jac., 74). the master of the rolls [Sir John Leach]. The cases upon this point are numerous, and may not all be capab......