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/ssactsengr0804 and id is 1 raw text is: ROBINSON V. ADDISON
accounts-that the residue might be ascertained-and that it might be declared, that
the leasehold premises ought to have been sold immediately after the said testator's
decease, and the clear produce thereof invested in consols, and that the dividends of
such Bank annuities only, ought to have been paid to the tenant for life, and for
consequential relief both against the trustees, and the tenant for life.
By the decree made in this cause on the 30th of May 1837, it was referred to the
Master to make the usual enquiries, and take the usual accounts, and he found that
part of the residue consisted of the leasehold house.
The cause now came on to be heard for further directions; the only question was,
whether the leasehold house, the term in which had now only a few years to run, ought
or ought not to have been sold at the testator's death.
Mr. Kindersley and Mr. Girdlestone, for the Plaintiffs, contended that a sale ought
to have taken place. That the general rule was in favour of conversion, and there were
no special circumstances here to take the case out of the rule. That this was indeed
a strong instance of the propriety of the doctrine; for if no conversion took place,
there would be but little chance to those in remainder of receiving any benefit from
the leasehold property. That the only circumstance apparently in favour of the
Defendants was the use of the word rents, which seemed to indicate an intention
that the residue should be enjoyed in specie; but that this word, coupled as it was
with other words denoting annual income, could not be much relied on; that the
word estate would have comprised freeholds, if the will had been executed so as
[514] to pass real estate, and the word rents might therefore be referred to the
testator's idea that he was disposing of real as well as personal property. They
distinguished this case from that of Pickering v. Pickeving (1) in this, that here the
same residue was given to those in remainder as to the tenant for life, whereas, in
Pickering v. Pickering, the Lord Chancellor mainly founded his decision on the fact of
a different residue being given to the widow during her life from that which was
afterwards bequeathed to the son.
Mr. Pemberton and Mr. Prescott White appeared for the Defendants Tremamondo
and Castell and his wife, and Mr. Loftus Wigram, for Thomas William Flavell; but
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS [Lord Langdalel, without calling on them, said, that
he could not declare this to be a case of conversion without striking out altogether,
the word rents, which was twice repeated in the will, and it appeared that there
was no other property belonging to the testator, except the leaseholds, to which the
term rents was applicable.
(1) 2 Beav. 31 and 4 Myl. & Cr. 289 ; and see Howe v. Lord Dartmouth, 7 Yes.
137 (1802); Fearns v. Young, 9 Ves. 549 (1805); Crawley v. Crawley, 7 Sim. 427
(1835); Mills v. Mills, 7 Sim. 501 (1835); Fryer v. Buttar, 8 Sim. 442 (1837); Benn v.
Dixon, V.-C. (May 1, 1840); and Lichfield v. Baker, ante, p. 486 (1840); all which are
in favour of conversion. Holland v. Hughes, 16 Ves. 111 and 3 Mer 685 (1809);
Vincent v. Newcombe, 1 Younge, 599 (1832); Collins v. Collins, 2 Myl. & K. 703
(1833); Alcock v. Sloper, 2 Myl. & K. 699 (1833); Bethune v. Kennedy, 1 Myl. & Cr.
114 (1835); Pickering v. Pickering, ante, p. 31 (1839); affirmed, 4 Myl. & Cr. 289;
D'Aglie v. Fryer, V.-C. Feb. 19 (1841); in all which the decision was against
conversion. In Gibson v. Bolt, 7 Ves. 89 (1802) and Dimes v. Scott, 4 Russ. 195
(1828), there was an express direction to convert.
[515] ROBINSON v. ADDISON. May 9, June 27, 1840.
[S. C. 9 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 369; 4 Jur. 647.]
A testator having fifteen and a half Leeds and Liverpool Canal shares, which by Act
of Parliament were to be deemed personal estate, bequeathed five and a half such
canal shares to A., five such shares to B., and five such shares to C. There was no
description or reference in the will to shew that the testator intended to give the
particular shares which he held at the date of his will. At his death he possessed
no Leeds and Liverpool Canal shares. Held, that the legacies were general, and
not specific.
R. 1.-41
1281
2 BE.AV. 514.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0804&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)