King v. Evans

King v. Evans

The phrase 'to hold in fee simple' is an expression of known legal import that must be given effect and, because 'issue' is a flexible term, it must be read in context as meaning 'children' so that the devise created a life estate in the son with a remainder in fee simple to his issue; therefore the rule in Shelley’s case did not operate to create an estate tail in the son.

Citation
(1895) 24 SCR 356
Parties
Appellants/defendants: Henry King and Others; Respondent/plaintiff: Sarah Jane Evans
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 May 1895
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed
Legal Topics
Rule in Shelley’s Case, Construction of Wills, Life Estate Vs Fee Simple, Words of Limitation, Meaning of 'issue'
Source Language
English
Estates Wills Property Rule in Shelley’s Case Construction of Wills Life Estate Vs Fee Simple Words of Limitation Meaning of 'issue'

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry King and Others

Appellants/defendants

Sarah Jane Evans

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a devise to a son for life and thereafter to his 'lawful issue' 'to hold in fee simple' created an estate tail in the son under the rule in Shelley’s case or a life estate with remainder in fee simple to his issue
  2. 2 Whether the phrase 'to hold in fee simple' controls or is subordinate to the word 'issue' so as to convert 'issue' into a word of purchase

Ratio Decidendi

The phrase 'to hold in fee simple' is an expression of known legal import that must be given effect and, because 'issue' is a flexible term, it must be read in context as meaning 'children' so that the devise created a life estate in the son with a remainder in fee simple to his issue; therefore the rule in Shelley’s case did not operate to create an estate tail in the son.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed