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/ssactsengr0777 and id is 1 raw text is: MORISON V. MORISON
would have stood had she continued a married woman, for she has long been a
widow.
THE LORD JUSTICE TURNER. However the case might have stood had the word
reside alone been used, the words reside and dwell are quite sufficiently certain
to create a forfeiture as against a person who states that she never has resided and
does not intend ever to reside at the mansion. The Respondents may confine their
arguments to the question whether the proviso is applicable to Mrs. Dunne.
Mr. Bacon and Mr. J. W. Smith, for the Plaintiff, and Mr. Craig and Mr. Pownall
for Thomas Dunne, the second tenant for life. With respect to the omission of the
feminine pronoun we submit that it is altogether an insufficient foundation for the
inference which the Appellants draw from it, for the husband and wife are both
mentioned, and the use of the plural pronoun, if not more correct than that of the
singular, to designate the ownership of Mrs. Dunne's estate, is quite as correct. It
would also be too much to infer from the reference to the limitation to the trustees
to preserve that the forfeiture clause was only to operate where that limitation
followed the estate forfeited, there being no such restriction placed upon its operation
by the words of the will. Where the testator meant to exempt Mrs. Dunne from the
operation of a shifting clause, he has done so as in the name and arms clause.
THE LORD JUSTICE KNIGHT BRUCE. I agree with the Vice-Chancellor. I am
of opinion (213] that the clause of forfeiture applies to Mrs. Dunne as well as to the
other tenants for life, and that the reference to the trustees to preserve contingent
remainders and the use of the masculine singular and the plural pronouns, without
using the feminine singular, do not afford sufficient grounds for a contrary decision.
THE LORD JUSTICE TURNER. My opinion is not so confident on this point as
that of my learned brother, but, whatever conjectures I may have formed as to the
intentions of the testator, there does not appear to me enough foundation for a
judicial conclusion that the clause of forfeiture does not apply to Mrs. Dunne. I
think that the word their distinguishes the case from Sergison v. Adey, and is
sufficient to include every person becoming entitled. I think that the reference to
the limitation to the trustees to preserve does not furnish sufficient ground for the
inference that there was to be no determination of the life-estate, except where an
estate was limited to those trustees.
On the second appeal,
Mr. Bacon and Mr. J. W. Smith, for -the Appellant Charles Dunne. This is a
case not of repairs but of lasting improvements, as to which the Court has jurisdiction,
Hibbert v. Cooke (1 Sim. & St. 552), Lonzbe v. Stoughton (17 Sim. 84). At all events
the personal estate might be applied as sought under the power to invest it on real
estate. [THIE LORD JUSTICE KNIGHT BRUCE. Would there not be some difficulty
in making out that an addition of a new wing to an old [214] house is a purchase of
real estate fl We submit that it would be a fair operation to give to the clause.
The only ground upon which, before the Wills Act came into operation, a direction to
pay a gross sum was held to enlarge an indefinite devise into a fee was, that other-
wise the devise might confer a damnosa hereditas. So here, unless the construction
which we propose is put on the clause, the devise will confer a damnosa hereditas.
THE LORD JUSTICE KNIGHT BRUCE. This must be done, if at all, by an Act of
Parliament.
THE LORD JUSTICE TURNER concurred.
Appeals dismissed.
[214] MORISON V. MORISON, and several other Causes. Before the Lords
Justices. April 20, 1855.
[S. C. 2 Sm. & G. 564 ; 3 Eq. R. 557 ; 1 Jur. (N. S.), 1100; 3 W. R. 383; 4 My. & C.
215. See 1'n re Oriental Hotels Company, 1871, L. R. 12 Eq. 134.]
West India estates were devised upon trust for sale and distribution of the proceeds
among the testator's children absolutely. In a suit for the administration of the
trusts consignees were appointed, and pending the suit settlements were made of
the children s shares, by which interests for life and in reversion were limited. In
7 DE 0. M. & 0. 213.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0777&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)