The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-11-18 00:00:00

A KNOTTY POINT OF LAW.

In the Court of Cleuwery, the cause of " lladferd V.
Willis " has been heard, and was an appeal from a decision
by vice-chancetior Wi.kms. The snit was a VelldOeS suit
for specific performance of a contract for the purchase of
land.
Mr. Thomas Draper, who died in March, 18:12, by
his will, gave his freehold and his leasehold property,
anti the residue of his personal property, to trustees,
upon trust, to pay the income thereof to his daughters,
Ann awl Lucy, in equal shares as tenants in common
during their rvspective lives, wholly independent
of the control of any husband or husbands with whom
they or either of them might happen to intermarry.
After the respective deceases of the daughters,
the testator direetwl that the trustees should stand
possuseed of the property, upon trust, to convey,
assign, pay, and transfer the whole thereof " unto and
equally between the respective husbands of my said
ilaughters." The will further provided that, if either
of the daughters should die unmarried, her share in the
property should go Over to the surviving daughter, to
Is' held i,ll the same trusts as her original share. Piefoire
the testator's death the daughter Anti married William
Radford. She died on the 28th of February, 1868. The
other daughter, Lucy, on the 15th of September,
1832, married Daniel Pearce. Ile died on the 16th
of march, 1868, Laving by his will given all his interest
end,r the will of Thomas 1 /raper to his wife Lucy.
, On the lath uf January, 1871, part of the freehold
estate of Titormst Orx.pgr was put tip for sale by
auction, and the defendand became the purchaser for
1:890. On perusing the abstract of title he took the ob-
jection that Daniel Pearce was not entitled toan absolute
estate in a moiety of the property expectant on the

death of Lucy Pearce, Lutthat the moiety would either
vent in the person who might be her husband at the
time of her death, or in such person jointly with
Daniel Pearce. This bill for specific performance of
the agreement for purchase was then tiled, and the de-
fendant put in a demurrer. The Vice-Chancellor was
diNpOSell ti think that if Imey Pearce should leave a
husband living at her I loath he would have a good
claim to the property, but that, at any rite, the title
was too doubtful to be foms.l upon a purchaser. The
plaintiffs appealed. •
Mr. Greene, t 1.4 %, and Mr. 11. M. 'Williams were
for the appellants ; Mr. lOirkinson, Q. C., and Mr.
She) lware were for the demurrer.
l' rd Justice James said that he was unable to
concur with the judgment ,f the Vice-Chancellor. He
had no hesitation in saying that,i za the absence of
some controlling context, it was a settled rule that a
gift to an unmarried woman for her life, with remainder
to her husband in fee, would, upon her marriage, vest
an estate in fee in her husband. The general principle
which governed the vesting of estates was pre-emi-
nently applicable to a cave of this kind, for it was
intpossible to conceive that any rational testator could
have contemplated the possibility of leaving the family
dawhwr by her first hushand totally llllprOVided
for, in order to give hig j.roperty to some person whom
she might afterwards marry, and whomight surviveher.
On the other construction, the property would vest in
the father of the family, thus enabling horn to make a
provision for them. Was there, then, any controlling
context to induce the Court not to apply the general rule?
His Lordshipthought not. The word unmarried "lathe
gilt over must be taken to mean " without ever having
been married," and then there would be two alter-
native gifts, naking a complete deposition of the pro-
perty upon the death of the daughter. The direction
that the property should he conveyed wax not Mufti-
cieut to prove an intention that the estate should not
vest at once. This being his Lordship's view, and it
involving a general principle of construction not
affected by the particular words of the bill, there wan
no such doubt as to the title as to prevent him from
acting on his opinion awl compelling the purchaser to
complete the purchase. But as the question had been
raised in the simplest, cheapest, and most expeditious
mode, the defendant would not have to pay any (amts.
Lord Justice Mellish was of the same opinion, and
for the same reasons.