Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Ecclesiastical Courts at Doctors' Commons, and in the High Court of Delegates; Michaelmas Term, 1828-Trinity Term, 1829, and Some Cases of an Earlier Date in the Supplement and Volume 2

Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Ecclesiastical Courts at Doctors' Commons, and in the High Court of Delegates; Michaelmas Term, 1828-Trinity Term, 1829, and Some Cases of an Earlier Date in the Supplement and Volume 2

By (author) 

List price: US$27.64

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 download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1830 edition. Excerpt: ... is proved that the deceased was up, and "looked out of the window three or four days "before his death." Under these circumstances, there being a possibility and ability on the part of the deceased to have destroyed the will, Sir William Wynne pronounced against the instructions propounded. In Baumgarten v. Pratt, in the Prerogative Court, Easter Term 1796, the same Judge pronounced a similar decision. In that case there was a draft produced: the Court said;--"A "draft may be pronounced for; but it must be "proved either that the will remained entire at "the death, or, if destroyed in the life time, that "it was done without the knowledge and ap"probation of the testator: the presumption is, "that it was destroyed by the deceased: " and in that case the draft was pronounced against. Now these are authorities which go further back than the last twenty years, deciding that the presumption is, where a will is not found, that it was destroyed by the deceased himself. If, however, we should from the evidence arrive at the fact, that this will was destroyed by the deceased himself, the legal consequence cannot be disputed, that, prima facie, the duplicate is also destroyed. That point has been settled in a variety of cases: it is hardly necessary to refer to them. It was so decided in Sir Edward Seymour's case: --in Limbery v. Mason, (a) and it is as expressly laid down in Burtenshaw v. Gilbert, (b) where Mr. Justice Aston, after Lord Mansfield had gone through the case, said, "if the duplicate of the will had still remained 1829. Hilary Term, By-Day. Colvin V. Fraser. coLTIn V. Fraser. 1829-"in the hand of the person to whose custody it Hilary "was originally intrusted, yet the...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 192 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 10mm | 354g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • Miami Fl, United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236638794
  • 9781236638793