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/ssactsengr0659 and id is 1 raw text is: RAWE V. CHICHESTER
the personal estate, amounted to £2565, 9s. Hlid. ; the net rents of the real estate
£2041, 19s. 61d. ; and that the balance in hand of both these funds is £466, 9s. 11d.
That the amount of the principal and interest, and the charitable bequests amounts
to £1139, Is. Od.
The cause was set down for further directions, which were given accordingly.
After twelve years, the above decree was appealed from, occasioned by the deter-
mination of Foster v. Blagden (Ambl. 704), before Lord Chancellor, Baron Smythe
sitting for Lord Chancellor.
[715] Lord Chancellor, without hearing the reply, reversed the decree, so far as
related to the charitable legacies to Winchester hospital, and for the relief of widows
and children of clergymen, on the authority of Foster v. Blagden ; and directed an
inquiry, what fund was established at Winchester College, to defray expence of super-
annuates at either of the Universities ; and after ordering the costs, declared that the
residue of the three per cent. belonged to the heir at law.
(1) As with respect to legacies generally the Court will, if the real and personal
estate is charged with debts, throw the whole of the debts on the real estate, to leave
the personal fund free for the payment of the legacies ; so the same rule will be followed,
in favour of charity legacies, the Court acting in such cases as it would have done before
the statute, Arnold v. Chapman, 1 Ves. 110. And in cases where particular legacies
are given to a charity, and the real and personal estate is charged with both debts and
legacies, the Court has thrown the debts and other legacies on the real estate, in the
first instance. Attorney-General v. Lord Weymouth, ante, 20, and see Attorney-General
v. Graves, ante, 157 (but observe the decree from Lib. Reg.), and see in Arnold v. Chap-
man, 1 Ves. 110. But as the Court will not in favour of other residuary legacies, where
the real estate is charged with debts, throw the debts upon the real estate, so neither
will it in favour of residuary charity legacies. Arnold v. Chapman, ub. sup. Foster v.
.Blagden, Ambl. 704. Waller v. Childs, Ambl. 256. Attorney-General v. Tyndall,
Ambl. 614; S. C. 2 Eden, 211. Attorney-General v. Martin, cited 3 Bro. C. C. 377.
See Ridges v. Morrison, 1 Cox, 180. In some early cases, where the residue consisted
partly of leaseholds or mortgages, the Court threw the debts and other legacies upon
the leaseholds and mortgages in the first instance. Attorney-General v. Tomkins,
Ambl. 216. Attorney-General v. Graves, Ambl. 157. Negus v. Coulter, Ambl. 368,
note from Lib. Reg. (in which last case it does not appear in Lib. Reg. what the terms
of the bequest were, but see the decree). Attorney-General v. Caldwell, Ambl. 635.
But in such cases, the Court at present will not throw the debts or other legacies on
the leaseholds or mortgages, in the first instance; but both funds must contribute
proportionally to the payment of the debts and other legacies. Attorney-General v.
Winchelsea, 3 Bro. 380. Howse v. Chapman, 4 Yes. 550. Paice v. Archbishop of
Canterbury, 14 Ves. 372. Curtis v. Hutton, ib. 541. See Makeham v. Hooper, 4 Bro.
C. C. 152.
Case 352.-RAWE against CHITCHESTER, and Cross Cause. March 1773.
[See on point as to interest, Bradford v. Brownjohn, 1868, 37 L. J. Ch. 201
L. R. 3 Ch. 711.]
One bequeaths several leasehold estates, held for years under the Dutchy of Cornwall,
to his wife, during so many years of the term as she shall live ; and after her decease,
if the terms of the several leases be then in being, unto and amongst, &c. The wife
got an additional term, and held it shall not be for her own benefit, but should go
to the uses of the will. (See Taster v. Marriott, Ambl. 668. Owen v. Williams,
Ambl. 736.)-[Lib. Reg. 1772, A. fo. 658, nom. Bromfield v. Chichester, and Rawe v.
Chichester. S. C. [sub nom. Bromfield v. Chichester], 2 Dick. 480; 1 Bro. C. C.
198, note.]
Richard Rawe, possessed of an estate called Prince's Meadow, in the parish of
Lambeth, held by lease under the dutchy of Cornwall for a term of years, in the name
of Joseph Sherwood, upon the l1th December 1716, obtained an additional term of
sixteen years and a half, to be granted to Joseph Sherwood, in trust for himself ; and
being likewise possessed of several other leasehold estates in the county of Cornwall,
which are since expired and gone, made his will upon the 29th December 1716.; and
AIVIB. 715.
46.3](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0659&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)