Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Courts of Exchequer and Exchequer Chamber, at Law, in Equity, and in Error; From Michaelmas Term, 7 Geo. IV., to [Hilary Term, 10 & 11 Geo. IV.], Both Inclusive, [1826-1830] Volume 1

Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Courts of Exchequer and Exchequer Chamber, at Law, in Equity, and in Error; From Michaelmas Term, 7 Geo. IV., to [Hilary Term, 10 & 11 Geo. IV.], Both Inclusive, [1826-1830] Volume 1

List price: US$22.39

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1857 edition. Excerpt: ... and if she does not receive the annuity, his intention will be defeated. It issaid, he charges generally all his estates; and it might be so, if 307 it had not been followed by the residuary devise. If the testator VOL. I.--27, s 2 _-_Y. a J. intended the pecuniary legatee to be paid, it is equally clear that he intended the specific devisee to take the benefit provided for him. It cannot be contended, that a specific legatee of goods and chattels can be called upon to contribute to the payment of a pecuniary legacy; and if he can be, how, and in what manner, is the contribution to be made? Hayter for the defendant Rosamond Spong, the testator's widow, and for the defendant William Spong. Lovat for Daniel Spong, the testator's heir at law.--Very strong expressions in wills have frequently been passed over by the Court, in order to effectuate the general intention of the testator. Robinson 11. Robinson, 1 Burr. 38, Doe dem. Strong v. Goff, 11 East, 668.(a) In Jesson v. Wright, 2 Bligh, 1, Lord ELDON expressly states it as an established rule, that where there is a particular and a general intent, the former is to be sacrificed to the latter, and that the Courts are bound to give effect to it. Here the testator's intention clearly was, that all the devises and bequests in his will should have effect, and not that any one of them should be disappointed in order to effect the other. Simpkinson, in reply.--The question is, merely, what was the intention-of the testator; not whether a pecuniary legatee has a right to call on a specific legatee for a contribution. Joy v. Campbell does not appear to have been decided on this point, for there does not seem to have been any argument on the question, whether the estates were...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 196 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 11mm | 358g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236749650
  • 9781236749659