R6/5/7/12

Case for opinion of counsel

10 April 1738

From: 1738 To: 1738

Case for opinion of counsel (Knightley D’Anvers) as follows: “Thomas Dew, deceased, by his last will and testament in writing duly executed in presence of 3 credible witnesses gives to his wife his real estate in B[edford] for her life or so long as she continued a widow and after her decease or marriage (which first happened) unto his son Thomas and the heirs of his body and for want of such issue Testator devised the same among all his Daughters as should be living at the death of his wife and son if he died in his minority and without issue and to their heirs and assigns. But chargeable with the payment of the following legacies viz unto his three Daughters by his first wife £10 each to be paid as they should attain to 21 and also £10 a piece when his son should attain to 21 and in case any of them die before they come to such – that such child’s legacy be paid to the Survivor of them. Testator by a Codicil afterwards revoked the £10 legacies payable to his Daughters at their ages of 21 – his wife is now dead and his Son has attained his age of 21. But two of his Daughters by his first wife died after they attained 21 and before the Son came to his age of 21. (i.e.) before the legacies became payable to them but were married at their Deaths therefore:” “Q. whether their legacies shall sink into the estate for the benefit of the heir, or whether their husbands be entitled to them or whether they shall go to the surviving Sisters”. “I have seen neither Copy of the will of Codicil but by what appears above I think there are no words in the will which vests any legacy before it becomes payable. So it nothing vested in the 2 daughters, deceased and consequently their husbands by taking out Administration cannot be entitled. But the 2 legacies to each given are lapsed and sink for the benefit of the testator’s son, the devisee, unless the surviving sister could entitle herself to the whole by the clause by which given to the survivor but that is a very imperfect and insensible clause, tho if anything can be collected from it, it must be that the testator intended that if any of them died before they came to the age of 21 then in such case only there should be survivorship, but both the daughters having lived till after they attained the Age of 21 I conceive the survivor cannot be entitled but that the son shall have the benefit thereof as above”.

item

D'anvers, Knightley,
Dew, Thomas,
Dew, Ann,
Dew, Martha,
Dew, Sarah

BEDFORD, Bedford High Street, legal opinion, wills, Knightley D'anvers