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/ssactsengr0883 and id is 1 raw text is: SWEET V. MEREDITH
of the will that follows that word excludes any such construction. In my opinion
that word thereafter refers only to the event of marrying again.
The testator, in very plain words, has given the principal sum to the lady in
question; and then, for a very intelligible purpose, has directed how the interest
shall be applied during her lifetime, and has added words of gift over to the residuary
legatee in one event only, viz., that of her marrying again. It is impossible, therefore,
to hold that she takes a life-estate only, when, if that construction be right, the words
import a clear gift of the £3000.
She has an absolute interest in the principal, with a direction that the interest
only shall be applied for her use during her life, because in the event of marriage
there is a gift over. Until this event happens, or if it never happens, no one but
this lady can be entitled to the legacy.
There must be a declaration that Agnes Bland is entitled to the sum of £3000,
with a gift over in case of her marriage. The fund to be carried to her separate
account till marriage or further order; the dividends to be paid to her till marriage
or further order. Liberty to apply on her death or marriage.
(610] SWEET V. MEREDITH. March 17, 18, 1862.
[S. C. 31 L. J. Ch. 817; 8 Jur. (N. S.) 637; 6 L. T. 415. For subsequent
proceedings, see 32 L. J. Ch. 147 ; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 569; 7 L. T. 664.]
An agreement for the sale of an advowson, containing a stipulation that the vendor
should pay interest until the benefice became vacant (the incumbent being a son
of the vendor, but not a party to the contract) : Held, not simoniacal.
The bill alleged that, before and at the date of the agreement in question in this
suit, the Plaintiff was seized in fee-simple in possession of the Rectory of Kentisbury,
North Devon. In June 1861 the Defendant agreed to purchase the advowson, subject
to the incumbency of the Plaintiff, the then incumbent, for the sum of £5500, on the
terms contained in certain documents and letters. The bill alleged that the Defendant
agreed to make the purchase with a view to becoming the incumbent on the first
vacancy. On the 12th June Mr. H. Sweet of Taunton, a solicitor, and a son of the
Plaintiff, wrote to the Defendant, on behalf of his father, a letter, of which the
material part was as follows --
I had a long consultation on the subject [the sale of the advowson] on Monday,
and then received instructions not to sell for less than £5500; should you be willing
to give this sum, as I am led from your letter of yesterday to hope that you will,
your reply, coupled with this letter, will form a contract between us; and I therefore
beg to state I am selling for my father on the terms of sale, a copy of which I enclose.
The enclosed terms, so far as they were material, were as follows:-
Terms of the sale of the advowson of Kentisbury, Devon, of which the Rev.
William Fort Sweet is the incumbent.
The Rev. Charles Barter Sweet is the patron and the vendor.
The advowson is sold subject to the mortgage to the [611] governors of Queen
Anne's Bounty, on which £420 and interest will remain to be discharged on the
completion of the purchase, and the future incumbent is to be entitled to the profits
of the living from the time he comes into possession.
The purchase to be completed at Michaelmas 1861, and the conveyance to be
prepared at the purchaser's expense in the usual way.
The title shall commence with an indenture dated 18th March 1773.
The terms also contained stipulations as to identifying and as to the title to a
bit of plantation thrown into the glebe from the Preston estate, which was to be
accepted. On the 13th June 1861, in reply to the above letter, the Defendant wrote
to the Plaintiff's solicitor as follows:--
I feel much obliged for your letter of yesterday, and terms of sale of Kentisbury.
If I should ever have an opportunity of going with you into the figures and calcula-
tions I made, by which you thought I was reducing my offer, you will find it comes
3 GLIFF. 610.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0883&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)