HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0060 and id is 1 raw text is: DOE V. FROST
though it were expressly devised to be sold out and out; and they would be thus
unable to carry into effect any of the declared intentions of the testator.
The following certificate was afterwards sent:
This case has been argued before us by counsel; and we are of opinion that
Benjamin Johnson, George Penrice, and Richard Nash, take to them, and the survivors
and survivor of them, and the heirs of the survivor, only an estate for the life of the
testator's daughter Mary, in Grafton, Flyford, North Piddle, and Flyford Flavel.
C. ABBOTT. G. S. HOLROYD.
J. BAYLEY. W. D. BEST.
(546] DOE, ON THE DEMISE OF KING AND WIFE, against CATHERINE FROST.
Friday, May 2d, 1820. A testator having a son and daughter, and the latter
having several children, devised to his son W. F. in fee; and if he should have
no children, child, or issue, the said estate was, on the decease of W. F., to become
the property of the heir at law, subject to such legacies as W. F. might leave to
the younger branches of the family : Held, that W. F. took, under this will, an
estate in fee, with an executory devise over to the person, who on the happening
of the event contemplated by the will, should become the heir at law of the
testator.
[Distinguished, Doe v. Spratt, 1833, 5 B. & Ad. 740; Jones v. Ryan, 1846, 9 Ir. Eq.
R. 250. Discussed, Ex parte Davies, 1851, 2 Sim. N. S. 122 ; Parker v. Birks, 1854,
1 K. & J. 164. Referred to, Coltsmann v. Coltsmann, 1868, L. R. 3 H. L. 134;
Upton v. Hardman, 1874, Ir. R. 9 Eq. 165.]
Ejectment for certain premises, situate in the county of Cambridge. At the trial,
before Abbott C.J., at the last Summer Assizes for that county, the jury found a
special verdict, which stated the following facts. William Frost, being seised in his
demesne, as of fee, of and in the manor of Brinkley, in the county of Cambridge,
and of certain lands and tenements in the several parishes of Brinkley, Wellingham,
Carlton, and Westley, in the said county, being the manor, lands, and tenements ill
the said declaration mentioned, and which said premises were all purchased at one
time by the said W. Frost, and were altogether legally conveyed to him by one con-
veyance, by his will on the 6th day of April, 1805, duly made and executed, so as to
pass freehold estates, amongst other things, devised as follows ; that is to say ; I give
and bequeath to my well beloved son, William Frost, of the parish of Brinkley and
county of Cambridge, farmer, and his heirs for ever, all my houses and lands, with all
their appurtenances thereunto belonging; also I give to my well-beloved wife, Rebecca
Frost, the sum of 1001., yearly and every year, during her natural life, to be paid her
by the aforesaid W. Frost, half-yearly, out of the estate; and if the said W. Frost
should have no children, child, or issue, the said estate is, on the decease of the said
W. Frost, to become the property of the heir at law, subject to such legacies as he the
said W. Frost may leave by will to any of the younger branches of the family. After
making the said [547] will, to wit, on the 25th day of August, 1807, the said W. Frost,
the testator, died so seised as aforesaid, of the premises in the will mentioned, being
also the premises in the declaration mentioned, and without having revoked or altered
his will, and leaving Rebecca, his wife, him surviving, and leaving issue of his body,
lawfully begotten, namely, William Frost, the devisee named in the will, his only son
and heir at law, and Rebecca, the wife of Robert King, in the said declaration
mentioned, and no other issue. W. Frost the Younger, the devisee in the will
mentioned, had been in the possession of the estate devised to him by his father, the
said W. Frost, the testator, a certain space of time, to wit, for seven years before his
father's decease, and became seised thereof on the death of his said father, and con-
tinued so seised thereof until and at the time of his death. After the death of the
said W. Frost the father, the said W. Frost the Younger, still continuing seised of the
premises aforesaid, in the said declaration mentioned, by his last will and testament,
duly made, so as to pass freehold estates, on the 10th day of July, 1810, devised,
amongst other things, as follows; that is to say, first, I do, as far as I lawfully or
equitably may or can, by virtue and in pursuance of the last will and testament of my
late father W. Frost, of the parish of Wooddithen, and county of Cambridge, farmer,
3 B. & ALD. 546.
761](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0060&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)