References: [1853] EngR 1056, (1853) Kay 71, (1853) 69 ER 31
Links: Commonlii
A bill can be maintained by a devisee of the legal estate in real property, who is in possession, for the purpose of establishing the will against the testator’s heir at law, although the heir has brought no action of ejectment against the devisee.
Previously to the Statute of Frauds the Court of Chancery frequently took upon itself to determine the validity of wills by inquiry before some of the Masters of the Court, a practice which has ceased since the case of Kerrich v. Brandy, 7 Bro. P. C. 437, But, as early as the time of James the First, it appears to have been considered that the proper mode of trying the validity or invalidity of a will of real estate was by a trial at law, the Court of Chancery reserving the power to deal with the case as justice might require.
The proceeding in equity to establish a will against the heir differs very much from assisting to try its validity or invalidity, either by removing the obstacle of an outstanding
term, in which case the trial at law would be by ejectment, or by perpetuating testimony concerning the will; because, by a decree establishing the will, the heir at law is so bound that a perpetual injunction wouid be granted against him if, after such decree, he should attempt to impeach the will.
The origin of this jurisdiction is obscure ; but, on principle, it cannot arise from the fact of the devise being upon trust, for that can make no difference to the heir ; or because the Court experiences a difficulty, for then, in all other cases of difficulty occurring under deeds, there would be the same jurisdiction.
Nor can it be for the protection of trustees, because the jurisdiction exists where there is no trust, but only the obstacle of an outstanding legal estate, which prevents an action at law.
But upon principle and authority there is an inherent equity on the part of the devisee, whether legal or equitable, arising from the mere fact of the devise, to have the will established against the heir.
An averment in such a bill that A. claims to be heir of the testator, supported by a statement that he has sued in that character in Ireland, and succeeded, is sufficient.
That the legal estate has been conveyed by the Plaintiff to his own trustee since then this cause came on to be heard upon a general demurrer for want of equity.
This case is cited by:
- See Also – Boyse -v- Rossborough ([1854] EngR 252, Commonlii, (1854) 3 De G M & G 817, (1854) 43 ER 321)
A mere legal devisee may file a bill against the heir at law of the testator for the purpose of having the will established against him, though no trustess are declared by the will, and though it is not necessary to administer the estate under the . . - See Also – Boyse -v- Rossborough ([1854] EngR 853, Commonlii, (1854) 1 K & J 124, (1854) 69 ER 396)
A decree of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, after verdict upon an issue devisavit vel non, does not determine the validity or invalidity of the will, so far as it relates to lands in England, and cannot be pleaded in bar to a suit in this Court. . . - See Also – Boyse -v- Rossborough HL ([1857] 6 HLC 2, [1857] EngR 299, Commonlii, (1857) 5 HLC 1, (1857) 10 ER 1192)
In order to set aside the will of a person of sound mind, it is not sufficient to show that the circumstances attending its execution are consistent with hypothesis of its having been obtained by undue influence. It must be shown that they are . .
