The Estate of Henry Ffolliott Gyles, Owner and Petitioner

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 11 May 1863
• Date: 11 May 1863
• Court: Incumbered Estates Court (Ireland)

L. E. Court.

In the Matter of the Estate of HENRY FFOLLIOTT GYLES,

Owner and Petitioner.

Hillas v. HillasUNK 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 134.

Windurs v. Windurs 6 D. M. & G. 549.

Cook v. Oakley 1 P. W. 302.

Monk v. MawdsleyENRENR 1 Sim. 290; S. C., 1 Russ. 479.

In Davenport v. ColtmanENR 12 Sim. 600.

In Monk v. Mowdsley Ubi supra.

In Wilce v. WilceENR 5 M. & Pay. 682; S. C., 7 Bing. 664.

Warner v. WarnerUNK 15 Jur. 141.

CHANCERY REPORTS. 311 1863. L. E. Court. Eartbeif tattt3 Court. In the Matter of the Estate of HENRY FFOLLIOTT GYLES, Owner and Petitioner. JANE GYLES, by her will, duly executed, and dated the 10th day of May 1849, did give and bequeath to her brother-in-law Henry Ffolliott Gyles, the owner in this matter, everything she might die possessed of, with the exception of the household furniture ; and appointed him her sole executor and residuary legatee. The testatrix was, at the time of her decease, seised of certain freehold lands. A petition for sale of these lands was presented by the said Henry Ffolliott Gyles, and an order for sale was made thereon. A motion was made on behalf of Catherine Price, heiress-atÂÂlaw of the testatrix, to set aside the order, on the ground that the lands comprised in the petition did not pass by the will, but descended to her as heiress-at-law. April 25. May 11. A testatrix, being seised of real estate, made her will, dated the 10th day of May 1849, and thereby did " give and beÂÂqueath to her brother-in-law A, everything she might die possessed of, with the exÂÂception of her furniture • and appointed him her sole exeÂÂcutor and resiÂÂduary legatee." -Held that the real estate passed to A under the will. Mr. R. R. Warren and Mr. John Flood, for the heiress-at-law. Argument. An heir-at-law can only be disinherited by express words or necessary implication. The residuary clause is insufficient to pass realty : Hillas v. Hillas (a); Windurs v. Windurs (a). There is nothing to show that the testatrix contemplated real estate; and the only thing mentioned by way of gift, or exception, is personal estate. If the will in this case contained a bequest of the testatrix's household furniture and all she might die, possessed of, followed by a residuary bequest, the doctrine called " ejusdem generis" would apply, and even a chattel interest would not pass: Cook v. Oakley (c). (a) 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 134. (6) 6 D. M. & G. 549. (c) 1 P. W. 202. 1863. L. E. Court. In re GYLES' ESTATE. Argument. 312 CHANCERY REPORTS...