Page images
PDF
EPUB

have appointed to all or any of her children in fee, and was not restrained to appoint to them in tail only; which limitation in default of appointment, is a substitution for the execution of the power. The King v. The Marquis of Stafford, et al. 7 Eust, 521.

114 Where there is no connexion by grammatical construction or direct words of reference, or by the declaration of some common purpose, between distinct devises in a will, the special terms of one devise cannot be drawn in aid of the construction of another, although in its general terms and import similar, and applicable to persons standing in the same degree of relationship to the testator; and there being no apparent reason, other than the different wording of the clauses, to presume that the testator had a different purpose in view. Therefore, where the testator having a son married, and six grandsons and three granddaughters, and three farms, devised all his lands to his son, for life; and after his death gave to his eldest grandson Thomas (the defendant) the north side of Doon farm, and to his granddaughter Frances, the south sile of the same farm: and to his grand sons George and Edmund, and his granddaughter Elizabeth, "the upper part of Lain farm, equally between them, so long as they should remain single, but if either married, then to have paid by the other two ten pounds a year for his or her life; and to his grandsons Edward and John, and his granddaughters Mary and Ann, the lower part of Lain farm, equally between them (which made them tenants in common) so long as they remained single, but if either married, then 10l. a year. (not saying to be paid by the others) for his or her life," and then gave the third farm to another grandson: held, that on the marriage of Eheard. Mary and Ann. their co-devisee of the lower part of the Lain farm, John, who remained

single could not reeover the 3 4ths of the farm forfeited by their marriage, as upon the supposition that the 10. a year for life to each of the devisees so marrying was to be paid by him who remained single; as in the corresponding devise of the other part of the Lain farm: but the 34ths may be chargeable with the annuities of 10l. a year, to each in the hands of the heir at law, who was entitled to those shares: Neither could the grandchildren take a fee by implication in the shares so devised to them generally without words of limitation, merely from the circumstance that an express estate for life was first given to the testator's son and heir at law. Right d. Campton v. Campton. 9 Erst, 267.

115 By a bequest of a leasehold to R. until his (eldest) son, T. shall attain 21, and no longer; but in case 7. shall die in minority then to J. or O. (his younger brothers) or either surviving or attaining 21, as aforesaid; with a desire that R. would quit and deliver up the premises as aforesaid, and confirming th bequest of them to R's. family on his relinquishment of a certain clain, which he did relinquish; held, that T. on his attaining 21, took the estate by necessary implication; though there were a devise of the residue to N. the younger brother of R. Goodright v. Hoskins. East, 306.

9

116 One having a freehold manor of Sutton, and freehold lands there, and having also copyhold within the township of Sutton, and within the local ambit of the manor, but held of another manor; and having surrendered his copyhold to the use of his will; devised all his manor of S. and all his messuages, farms, lands, tenements and hereditaments whatsoever, within the precinets and territories of S. in the county of Chester, with their rights, members, and appurtenances, in trust for his daughter L. (having devised

other estates in other counties to two other daughters) and to her children in strict settlement: held 1. That farms, lands, &c. within the township, though not within the manor of Sutton, passed by the description of farms, &c. within the precincts and territories of S. 2. that the general words "messuages, farms, lands, &e. and particularly the word farins were sufficient to carry copyhold as well as freehold in the place described, if such appeared to be the intent of the testator upon the whole will. 3. That such intent was evinced in the case by the word farms, where it appeared that the testator had a farm, composed of copyhold and freehold, which he had let as one entire subject, and which otherwise must be divided and also by this, that he had charged the property devised beyond the annual income of it, unless the copyhold were included. And that this intent was not rebutted by a power of leasing for 21 years given to all the tenants for life; nor by power to the trustees to raise portions by grants of long terms of years. 4. That a small copy hold distant 8 miles, and a small freehold 20 miles from Sutton, but within the county of Chester, did not pass by that devise, but did pass under a general residuary clause to another daughter. Doe d. Belasyse v. The Earl of Lucan. 9 East, 118.

117 A. having no issue; and being tenant in tail under the will of Dr. G. with remainder to B. and C. for life, remainder to the heirs of their bodies, for such estates and in such proportions as they or the survivor should appoint, and in default of such appointment, remainder to the heirs of the body of B. with remainders over; made his will, whereby, after devising certain estates to trustees to sell and apply the purchase money amongst different relations, and directing them to sell all other his real estates, and apply

the money to some of those relations; he gave 51. apiece to C. (who survived B.) and to D. the only child of B. and C.," in consideration of the ample provision made for them after my decease by Dr. G. who has by his will devised to them certain estates in K., now in my possession, which, though I could now legally dispose of, I mean fully to confirm to them, according to the intent of the said will." Af ter this A. suffered a recovery and declared the uses to himself for life, remainder to such persons, and for such uses as he, by deed, will or codicil, to be properly attested, should appoint; and for default of such appointment, to C. for life, remainder to D. for life, with remainder over in fee. After this he made a eodicil, duly executed, whereby he confirmed his said will in all respects not thereby altered; and after making some alterations in respect of other property, he declared such codicil to be part of his said will. Held that C. and D. took nothing under the will and codicil of A. in the property which had belonged to Dr. G. for it did not appear that A. intended by his will to devise the property in question, but rather to let it pass as it was devised by the will of Dr. G and his confirmation of his will by his codicil could not carry it further. But even if he had intended to exercise a devising power by the will, according to the estates carved out by Dr. G.'s will for C. and D., yet he afterwards altered that intent, and took a new estate in the premises, by suffering a recovery, the uses of which were different from those of Dr. G.'s will; reserving to himself a power of appointment by deed, will or codicil; and when he executed a codicil afterwards, confirming his will in all respects, except where altered or revoked by his codicil, and then made specific alterations as to other parts of his property, without reference to his pow

:

er, or to the property in question 120 Where the whole property is de

(though such inference be not essentially necessary to the execution of a power, if it plainly appear that the party meant to execute it) nothing appeared to shew that he meant to execute the power by his codicil confirming his will generally, supposing it could take effect through the medium of such a will, Lane v. Wilkins. 10 East, 241. 418 Under a devise of seven different estates to a sister, brothers and nephews, respectively, one to each stock, including, as to six of the estates 3 several lives in succession on each estate; and as to the seventh (which in the first instance was only limited to two persons for life in successions) giving those two a power to add another life or lives to make 3 iu like manner as after mentioned for other persons to do the same," and then giving this general power," that when and so often as the lives on either of the estates before given shall be by death reduced to two, that then it shall be in the power of the person or persons then enjoying the said estate or estates to renew the same with the person, or persons to whom the revenue thereof shall belong, by adding a third life in such estate, and paying such reversioner twe years' purchase for such renewal; and also to exchange either of the said two lives, on payment of one year's purchase:" held that the power of renewal, only authorised the addition of one life to the three on each estate, and of making oue exchange of a life. Doe dem. Hardwiche v. Hardwiche. 10 East,

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

vised with a particular interest given out of it, it operates by way of exception. Jackson ex dem. Beach and others v. Durland, 2 Johns. Cas. 314.

121 A. by his last will and testament,
among other things, devised as fol-
lows: And whereas I bave con-
veyed to my son C. my lands
at C., and to my son D.
my lands at F. I give and devise all
my remaining lands and tenements
and real estate whatsoever, to my
sons C. and D. and my daughter,"
&c. It was held, that the recital
in the will was evidence of a con-
veyance of the farm in F. to D. and
that C. as heir of the testatator,
was estopped by the recital, to de-
ny that the farm was conveyed to
D. and that the necessary intend-
ment from the language of the
clause in the will was, that it was
a conveyance in fee to D: Denn
ex dem. C. R. Colden v. Cornell,
3 Johns. Cas. 174.

122 Where A. devised "all his es-
tate real and personal, to his six
children, to be equally divided be-
tween them, share and share alike,
but if any of them died before arri:
ving at full age, or without lawful
issue that then his, her, or their
part or share should devolve upon
and be equally divided among the
surviving children, and to their
heirs and assigns forever; this was
held to be a good devise over, by
way of executory devise, and that
the share of one of the children,
who died without issue, after the
death of four of the other children,
who left issue, went to the only sur-
viving child. Jackson ex dem.
Burham & wife v. Blanshan.
Johns. Rep. 292.
122 A. devised "all his estate, real
and personal, to his six children, by
name, to be equally divided a
mong them, share and share alike;
but if one of them should die, before
arriving at full age, or without
lawful issue, that then his. her, or
their part, should devolve upon and

3

[ocr errors]

be equally divided among the surviving children. and their heirs and assigus forever." All the children survived the testator; four of them afterwards, died, leaving issue, and the fifth, after arriving at full age, died intestate, without issue, having previously conveyed his share of the estate; it was held, that the word "or" was to be construed, as and, so that the devise over did not take effect; and the surviving child was not entitled to the share of the one dying without issue. Jackson ex dem. Burhans and wife v. Blanchan. 6 John's Rep. 54. 124 A made his will, duly executed, and devised all the lands of which

appurtenant to his boarding house, and conducive to its support, passed by the will; especially, wher, from other parts of the devise, such was the evident intention of the testator. Jackson ex dem. White & others v. White. 8 Johns. Rep. 59.

126 Devise to the first heir male of J. S. wheu he shall arrive at the age of 21 years, he paying to A. and B. the daughters of J. S. 401. each: after the devisor's death J. S. had a son. who had attained the age of 21 and paid his sisters the 401. each : Adjudged, that the testator's intent was that the first son of J. S. should take the estate. 1 Dallas, 4.

1

shall create.

Devise to A. for 50 years, if he so long live, remainder to the heirs male of A. remainder to B. the last remainders take effect presently. No implication to be received against express words. Limitation per verba de præsenti will not make an executory devise, but verba de futuro will. Goodright v. Cornish, 1 Salk. 226. 1 L. Raym. 3.

he was then possessed to his four I. Cross Remainders, what Words
sons; and having afterwards be-
gome seized of other lands, he al-
tered his will by erasures and inter-
lineations, so as to make the devise
extend to all lands of which he should
die seized; and endorsed a memo-
randum, to that effect, on the will,
stating the alterations he had made;
but the memorandum was attested
by two witnesses only; it was held,
that the erasures and interlineations
did not destroy the original devise,
but that the alterations not having
been attested by three witnesses;
could not operate; and the lands
acquired subsequent to the date of
the devise descended to the heirs at
law. Jackson ex dem. Howard and
others, v. Holloway. 7 Johns, Rep.

394.
125 A, being seized of a house, with
stables, yards gardens, &c. and 18
acres of land adjoining, by his will,
devised to his wife as follows:

And also that large and convenient dwelling house, together with all the appurtenances and privileg es thereunto belonging, and the same, which is now improved by me, as a hoarding house." It was held, that not only the barn, stables, and outhouses, but the land consisting of orchard, posture, plouhh and woodland, all of which had been used by the testator, as

2

3

5

Cross remainders do not arise by implication only in a will where ne, cessary words are wanting. Com ber v. Hill. 2 Strange, 969; and Williams v. Brown, 996.

One devises to his two brothers and his sister, and the heirs of their bodies, as tenants in common, and not as joint tenats, and for want of such issue to his own right heirs, and then gives all the rest and residue of his goods and chattels, as well real as personal, equally between his said brother and sister, share and share alike; the devisees take eross remainders. Phipard v. Mansfield. 1 Cowp. 794.

Devise" to the use of all and every the daughter and daughters of, &c. and the heirs of their body and bodies; such daughters, if more than one, to take as tenants in common, and not as joint ter

6

ants; and for default of such issue, to the use of the testatrix's right heirs; the daughters take cross remainders. Wright v. Holford.

Cowp. 31. Lofft, 443.

5 A. devised" to all and every the daughter and daughters of the body of B., and the heirs male of the body of such daughter or daughters equally between them, if more than one, as tenants in common; and for default of such issue he devised all his said lands to C.:" held that the

of their bodies, remainder to all and every his daughter and daughters (if two or more) as tenants in common, and to the heirs of her and their bodies, remainder to the heirs of the devisor's brother; gives eross remainders to the daughters. Between more than two the presumption is against cross remainders; but this may be controlled by a plain intention to the contrary. Doe v. Barville. Cited. Ib. 47.

daughters of B. took cross remain- IV. Estate in Fee; what Words shall ders. Atherton v. Pye. 4 Term Rep. 710.

The rule is; that, as between two only, it shall be presumed that cross remainders were intended to be raised; but if there be more than two, it is necessary to resort to other words in the will to discover an intention to raise them. 4 Term Rep. 713.

Under a limitation (after estates for life to A. and B.) of" all and every the said premises to all and every the younger children of B. begotten or to be begotten, if more than one equally to be divided anongst them, and to the heirs of their respective body and bodies as tenants in common, &c. and if only one child, then to such only child, and to the heris of his or her body issuing; and for want of such issue,"

66

[ocr errors]

(a devisee of) the said premises to C. N. &c. (with several limitations over);"" and for want of such issue, then the testator divided the said premises between several branches of his family: Held that cross remainders were to be implied between the younger children of B. from the apparent intention of the testator from the whole of the will, notwithstanding the use of the word respective in such devise. Watson v. Foxon. 2 East, 36.

8 A devise by A. (having three sons and seven daughters) to his sous in succession for life, remainder to the heirs male of their bodies, remainder to the heirs female of their

1

2

give.

One seized of the lands of C. and G. in fee, and of other lands of B. for lives renewable for ever, and of other lands under leases for three lives with reversionary terms for 21 years, from the death of the surviving life in each lease; and being himself the surviving life in one devises thus: And as to my worldly substance, I give to my mother my house and lauds of G. with the appurtenances, during her natural life, clear of any deduction; and also my lands of B. subject to a rent payable thereout, for life, without liberty of committing waste thereon; and after several legacies and annuities to different relations, to his heir at law, and to the natural children of his brother; devises to his mother all the remainder and residue of all his effects both real and personal, which he shall die possessed of. The mother, by the residuary clause, takes a fee in all the testator's fee simple estates, and the whole of his interest in the rest of his real property, subject to the charges thereon. [Affirmed in Dom. Proc.] Hogan, Lessee of Wallis & others, v. Jackson. Cowp. 299.

Devise of a life annuity to A. to be paid by my executor after; and then a devise generally of a specific copyhold estate to B. with a residuary devise of all the personal estate, charged with debts and legacies, and making B. executor, gives

« PreviousContinue »