Abraham v Alman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1826 |
| Date | 01 January 1826 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 38 E.R. 196
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
For, Broad v. Bevan, 1 Russ. 511, n. (S. C. 1 L. J. Ch. (O. S.) 69.), see Raikes v. Ward, 1842, 1 Hare, 448; Thorp v. Owen, 1843, 2 Hare, 610; In re Moore, 1886, 55 L. J. Ch. 420.
abraham v. alman. [1826.] [For, Broad v. Bevan, 1 Euss. 511, n. (S. C. 1 L. J. Ch. (( . S.) (59.), see Raikes v. Ward, 1842, 1 Hare, 448; Thorp v. Owen, 1843, 2 Hare, G10; In re Moore, 188G, 55 L. J. Cn. 420.] A testator bequeaths to " his only son £(10 per year for ever : also to provide for the two daughters of H. E. and the remainder of his property to the two children of S. A. " : Held, that, under these words, the two daughters of H. E. do not take any benefit. The will of Lazarus Jacobs, dated on the 13th of April 179U, was in the following words : " I, Lazarus Jacobs, do will and bequeath unto my wife, Mary Jacobs, the sum of £100 sterling per year for her natural life, with all the plate and other property in the house, and after her decease to go to the two children of my daughter, tiukey Alman. I do likewise will and bequeath to my only sou, Isaac Jacobs, the sum of £GO sterling per year for ever ; also to provide for the two daughters of my child, Hannah Embden, namely, tiara/i Umbden and Esther Embden, and the remainder of my property to the two children of my daughter, Sukey Alman." The bill was filed by the two daughters of Hannah Embden and the husband of one of them against the two residuary legatees, Isaac Jacobs, and the administrator, with the will annexed, of the testator. The prayer was, that the administrator might be directed to pay to the plaintiffs, the daughters of Hannah Emden, such sum as might be considered adequate to their maintenance for the time past, and to make them a proper allowance for the future. [510] Mr. Shadwell and Mr. Trollope, for the Plaintiffs. There is here a plain and unequivocal direction to provide for the two daughters of Hannah Emden. The persons who are the objects of the testator's bounty are certain, and the extent of that bounty can be defined by means of a reference. It may be contended, that the provision for the Plaintiffs is to be a charge on the annuity given to Isaac Jacobs ; but if the Court should think that construction not sufficiently plain, the charge must fall on the general assets of the testator. There being a fund, out of which the provision is to come; the persons, for whom the provision is to be made, being specified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Briggs v Penny
...v. Moore (1 Sim. 534), Vezey v.Jamson (1 S. &-.S. 69), Ellis v. Selby (7 Sim. 352), Curtis v. Rippon (5 Madd. 434), Abraham v. Aim/an (1 Russ. 509), Hoy v. Master (6 Sim. 568), Lechmere v. Lame (2 M. & K. 197), Meredith v. Reneage (1 Sim. 542), Bardswell v. Bardswell (9 Sim. 319). - Mr. Tur......
-
Macnab v Whitbread
...power and control both over his property and children. They cited and commented at length on the following [300] cases: Abraham v. Alnum (1 Russ. 509); Sale v. Moore (1 Sim. 534); Curtis v. Rippon (5 Madd. 434); Hoy v. Masters (6 Sim. 568); Bardswell v. Bardswell (9 Sim. 319); Pope v. Pope ......
-
M'Auley v Clarendon
...M'AULEY and CLARENDON. Earl of Bute v. Stuart 1 Br. P. C. Tom. 476. Malin v. Keighly 2 Ves. 333, 529. Abraham v. AlmanENR 1 Russ. 509. Randall v. RussellENR 3 Mer. 190. Knight v. KnightENR 3 Beav. 138. Horwood v. WestENR 1 Sim. & St. 387. Gully v. CregoeENR 24 Beav. 185. Webb v. WoolsENR 2 ......
-
Winch v Brutton
...p. 568); Thorp v. Owen (2 Hare, 607); Lechmere v. Lavie (2 Myl. & Keen, 197); Benson v. Wittam (ante, vol. v. p. 22); Abraham v. Alman (1 Russ. 509). Mr. Stuart and Mr. Grimshaw, for the Plaintiff, relied on the clause in which the testator earnestly conjured his wife to proceed forthwith t......