« PreviousContinue »
(xliii.) Ch. Div. M. R.- Construction—Gift to Class—Persona Designata
Lapse.—Testator gave real and personal estate in trast to convert and divide equally amongst all the children of R., the child of W. and L. his wife, and A. a widow. L. was dead at date of will and the child of W. and L. predeceased testator : Held that the share of this child lapsed.
Wilson v. Atter, 44 L.T. 240; 29 W.R. 480. (xliv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Construction—Gift to Decendant's who shall Bear
Surname-Remoteness. Bequest to trustees in trust for testatrix's brother R. for life, and after his death, for his son J. for life, and after death of R. and J. apon trust for any immediate or direct descendants of R. or J. who should bear the name of R. for life; and from and after his or her decease in case of failure of any such immediate or direct descendants upon trust for certain charities, with a condition of forfeiture on abandoning the name of R.: Held that the gift to descendants included descendants who assumed the name of R., and was void for remoteness, and that the gift over to charities also failed.- Repington
V. Roberts, 50 L.J. Ch. 265; 44 L.T. 300. (xlv.) Ch. Div. M. R.- Construction-Hotchpot-Interest on Advances.
Testator gave his residuary estate to his widow for life, and then among his children equally, directing sums advanced to them to be brought into hotchpot: Held that interest on the advances should be calculated from
the death of the tenant for life.-Rees v. George, 44 L.T. 241; 29 W.R. 301. (xlvi.) Ch. Div. V.C.M.- Construction-Legacies-Priority.—Testator gave
£500 to his wife to be paid immediately after his death, and he gave his residuary estate to trustees upon trust to convert, and in the first place to raise two sums of £12,000 and £5,000 and invest the same and pay the income to certain persons for life and after their respective deaths the same sums were to fall into the residue. He then gave several other legacies and divided the residue : Held that the legacy of £500 had priority over everything else, and that the sams of £12,000 and £5,000 had priority over the general legacies.-Wells v. Barwick, 50 L.J. Ch.
241; 44 L.T. 49, (xlvii.) C. A.-Construction--Mixed Fraud-Payment pro rată—Exoneration of
Mortgaged Estates-17 & 18 Vict., c. 113.—Testator gave his residuary real and personal estate to trustees on trust to convert, and thereout to pay debts and funeral expenses; and after the death of his wife he gave so much of the fund as consisted of pure personalty to charities. He appointed executors and gave a legacy to each of them: Held that the executor's legacies were primarily payable out of the personalty, and that mortgages on the real estate must be paid out of the proceeds of the mortgaged estates.-Elliot v. Dearsley, L.R. 16 Ch. . 322; 44
L.T. 198; 29 W.R. 494. (xlviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Construction-Nephews and Nieces.—Testator
'devised certain property to "my niece, M. W.," and then gave other property to his nephews and nieces. He left pephews and nieces of his own, and also of his wife, M. W. being a niece of his wife : Held that the words "nephews aud nieces " included only his own nephews and nieces.
-Merrill v. Morton, 50 L.J. Ch. 249; 43 L.T. 750; 29 W.R. 394. (xlix.) C. A.--Construction-Power of Appointment—Sale and Reinvestment.
Decision of M. R. (see Will xxii., p. 42) affirmed.-Chandler v. Pocock, 44
L.T. 115. (1.) Ch. Div. V.C. H.-Construction, Power of Sale-Determination of.
Testator gave residuary estate to trustees upon trast for his wife for life, and after her decease to pay, transfer, or assign the same to his two daughters in equal shares as tenants in common, with a gift over in favour of issue of the daughters in certain events which did not happen,
and for the purpose of division he empowered his trastees to sell his residuary estate. The daughters survived the testator and bis wife : Held that the power of sale had determined.-Peters v. Lewes and East
Grinstead Rail. Co., 50 L.J. Ch. 172; 29 W.R. 422. (li.) C. A.-Construction-Remoteness—Executory Limitations.-Held, re.
versing the decision of V.C. M. (see Will ix., p. 41), that the direction to convey to the first son of W., who should attain twenty-five, was execntory limitation, and therefore void for remoteness.- Abbiss v.
Burney, 44 L.T. 267 ; 29 W.R. 449. (lii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Constructiom-Restraint on Alienation.—Testator
gave property to trustees on trust, after the death of his wife, to divide it into four parts and pay the income of one part to each of his fonr children during their lives, and on the death of any of them, to pay the share of such child as such child should by deed or will appoint, with a provision that in case any of his children's shares should be alienated during his or her lifetime, then all dispositions in favour of such child should be void : Held that the restraint on alienation was void.-Marshall
v. Aizlewood, 43 L.T. 752; 29 W.R. 414. (liji.) Ch. Div. V. C.M.-Construction—Separate Use-Gift for Sole Use and
Disposal.—Testatrix beqaeathed money to F., the wife of B., for her sole use and disposal : Held a gift to F. for her separate use.-Bland v.
Dawes, 50 L.J. Ch. 252; 43 L.T. 751 ; 29 W.R. 416. (liv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Construction—Trust for Use of Daughter and Her
Children.—Testator gave his property to trustees for the benefit of his daughter, for her use and the use of certain of her children for their education, with a direction that his daughter should only use the income until the youngest child attained twenty-one, or married. Six of the children attained twenty-one, and survived their mother: Held that there was a gift of income to the daughter for life, sobject to the trust for educating the children, and a gift of the capital to the six children
as joint tenants on her death.—Evans v. Evans, 43 L.T. 692. (lv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Construction—Unmarried.-When the word
“unmarried” occurs in a will, and there is nothing in the context or the circumstances of the case to shew a contrary intention on the part of the testator, it should be construed to mean never having been
married.”—Dalrymple v. Hall, 50 L.J. Ch. 302 ; 29 W.R. 421. (lvi.) C. A.-Construction—Vesting.–Testator gave the income of stock to his
nephew, which he was to enjoy with his wife during their respective lives, but in the event of either dying and the survivor marrying again, the stock was to be divided equally between their children, an arrange. ment ultimately to take place at the death of their parents should neither marry again: And the money was directed not to be removed from the English funds during the lives of the nephew and wife, nor until the period arrived "for its distribution (after their deaths) among their children surviving”: Held that the interests of the children were vested and not contingent on their surviving their parents.-Hannah v. Duke,
L.R. 16 Ch. D. 112; 29 W.R. 341. (lvii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Perpetuity--Restraint on Anticipation.-Gift of
residue on trust after the death of Elizabeth, to divide the same among all the children of Elizabeth and Agnes who should then be living, the shares of daughters to be settled to their separate use for their lives without power of anticipation, with remainder in default of appoint. ment, to the surviving children. Agnes was dead at the date of the will and Elizabeth was 60 at testator's death : Held that the restraint on anticipation was not a breach of the rule against purpetuities.-('ooper v. Laroche, 43 L.T. 794; 29 W.R. 438.
(lviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Satisfaction – Bequest of Annuity-Annuity
Secured by Bond.- Testator who had for valuable consideration cove. nanted to pay an annuity of €10 to H. D., so long as she should continue the widow of J. D., by eqnal half.yearly payments, bequeathed to her an annuity of £30, if she should so long continne a widow : Held that the bequest was not intended as a satisfaction of the annuity of £10.
-Dowse v. Glass, 50 L.J. Ch. 285. (lix.) Ch. Div. V.C.M.-Trust for Accumulation–Maintenance.-Testator
devised real and leasehold property of the annual value of £10,200 to trustees upon trust to accumulate the rents and profits for twenty-one years, and then to H. for life, with remainders in strict settlement. H. had two infant sons, and his means were not adequate to maintain and educate them in a manner suitable to their prospects. The Court made H. an allowance of £2,700 a-year for their ma nance.- Havelock Havelock, 44 L.T. 168.
ALL REPORTED CASES.
Law Reports, Law Journal Reports, Law Times
Reports, and Weekly Reporter,
FOR MAY, JUNE, AND JULY, 1881.
By HENRY M. KEARY, of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law.
Administration : (xvii.) P. D. A. Div.-Administrator out of Jurisdiction—Bankri.ptcy—38
Geo. III., c. 87, s. 1—21 & 22 Vict., c. 95, s. 18.--Administration de bonis non of an intestate granted to the assignee in bankruptcy of an adminis. trator out of the jurisdiction, limited to the fund to which the assignee was entitled.—In the goods of Hammond, L.R. 6 P.D. 104; 44 L.T. 649;
29 W.R. 807. (xviii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Costs of Suit-Intestacy as to Realty.—Testatrix
having given certain legacies, died intestate as to the rest of her personalty and as to her real estate : Held that the costs of an action by her heir-at-law to administer real and personal estate, were primarily payable out of the residuary personalty.--Thompson v. Harris, 50 L.J.
Ch. 525; 29 W.R. 731. (xix.) C. A.-Costs of Suit—Testamentary Expenses.--Where testator has
directed testamentary expenses to be paid out of a particular fund, the costs of an administration snit properly instituted will be payable out of that fund, though the suit has been instituted by legatees of
another fund.—Young v. Dolman, 44 L.T. 499. (xx.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Creditor's Action-Form of Judgment-Judicature Act,
1875, s. 10.-In a creditor's action, where there is a probability that the estate will prove insolvent, the judgment should contain a provision to the effect that, if the estate prove insolvent, the roles in bankruptcy
are to apply.-Hipkins v. Hildick, 44 L.T. 547; 28 W.R. 733. (xxi.) C. A.-Intestacy-Next-of-Kin – Legitimacy – Domicil.- Decision of
M. R. (see Administration iv., p. 1) reversed.— Re Goodman, L.R. 17 Ch.
D. 266 ; 50 L.J. Ch. 525 ; 44 L.T. 527 ; 29 W.R. 586. (xxii.) C. A.--Intestacy-Next-of-Kin Found-Right to Interest.–Decision of
V. C. M. (see Administration V., p. 1) reversed.- Re Gosman, 29
W.R. 793. (xxiii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Proof-Insolvent Estate-Contingent Liability, Vesting-Bankruptcy Act, 1869, 8. 31-Judicature Act, 1875, s. 10.