Medical Jurisprudence, Volume 1 (of 3)Paris, John Ayrton
Science
Medical Jurisprudence, Volume 1 (of 3)
Paris, John Ayrton
Medical laws and legislation -- Great Britain
survived a very considerable time, or both may have been living at the
moment of the suit; there was also some evidence of their comparative
state when last seen, as three or four sailors, who parted from the main
body and took a different route, ultimately escaped and arrived in
England to relate the melancholy tale of their shipwreck and sufferings.
In this case, one of the parties being an infant, it was ordered that it
be referred to the master to enquire and report whether it would be for
the benefit of the infant to consent to a compromise; and the master
having reported in the affirmative, no final judgment was given.
If a man be seized in fee of land and tenements, though but for a
moment, his wife is entitled to dower[589]; therefore if both father and
son perish by a common accident, and the son survive, however short the
period, his wife shall have dower, for the lands descended the instant
the father died. (2 _Bl. Com._ 132.) “This doctrine was extended very
far by a jury in Wales,[590] where the father and son were both hanged
in one cart, but the son was supposed to have survived the father, by
appearing to struggle longest; whereby he became seized of an estate in
fee by survivorship,” (he and his father being joint-tenants) “in
consequence of which seizing his widow had a verdict for her dower.”
_Broughton_ v. _Randall_, _Cro. Eliz._ 502, _Noy._ 64.[591] Here there
could be no dower till the termination of the joint-tenantcy; therefore,
if it were possible that they could have died simultaneously, the widow
of neither could have been entitled; but this we believe impossible,
therefore query, if there had been two widows and no evidence, should
the case have been decided on presumption?
So also of joint-tenants (as partners) where the interest of the first
deceased passes to the survivor, and not to the heir at law or next of
kin of the deceased; but the heir at law or next of kin of the last
survivor is entitled, (and see above _Broughton_ v. _Randall_.)
Also as between testator and legatee, if the legatee die first, it is a
lapsed legacy and falls into the residue; but if the legatee survive,
his executor or administrator shall take it.[592]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account