Agassiz v Squire
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1853 |
| Date | 01 January 1853 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 170
ROLLS COURT.
S. C. 23 L. J. Ch. 985; 1 Jur. (N. S.) 50.
170 AGASS1Z V. SQUIRE 18BBAV.431. [431] agassiz v. squire. Dec. 6, 7, 8, 1853; March 22, 1854. [S. C. 23 L. J. Ch. 985; Uur. (N. S:) 50.] Distinction between an appointment exceeding the limits of a power and void for the excess only, and one which being a fraud on the power is void altogether. A. B. had a power to appoint a rent charge in favour of her sons, and a power to appoint policy monies in favour of her children. On the 13th of August 1838 she appointed the rent charge to her son George, who, on the following day, settled it, not only in favour of himself and other objects of the power, but also of A. B.'s husband and others not objects of the power. On the same day, A. B. appointed the policy monies partly in favour of objects of the power and partly in favour of her husband and other persons not such objects. The deed contained a proviso, that if any of the objects should refuse to accede to the arrangements as to the rent charge and policy monies, he should forfeit the benefits intended. On the same day, George gave a bond to A. B.'s husband for securing him a benefit out of the policy monies. The Court being of opinion that the transaction must be taken as a whole, held it altogether void, both as against the objects of the power and the rest, considering it an entangled transaction to effect a fraudulent execution of the power in favour of persons who were not objects. The facts and arguments so clearly appear in the judgment as to require no further statement. The case was argued by Mr. R. Palmer and Mr. Toller, for the Petitioner, George B. Wentworth. They cited Stackpoole v. Beaumont (3 Ves. 89); Luxford v. Cheeke (3 Lev. 125); 1 Jarman on Wills (p. 731); [432] 2 Sugden on Pow. (pp. 202-208); Palmer v. Wheeler (2 Ball & B. 18); 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74, s. 47 ; Askham v. Barker (12 Beav. 499 ; 17 Beav. 37). Mr. Roupell and Mr. Hedge, for the Plaintiff, Louisa Agassiz, cited Lee v. Fernie (1 Beav. 483); Salmon v. Gibbs (3 De G. & Sm. 343); Lady Cavan v. Pulteney (2 Ves. jun. 544); Dodd v. Wake (5 De G. & Sm. 226). Mr. Drewry, for the trustees of policy monies. Mr. Sparling, for Mr. Agassiz. Mr. Craig and Mr. C. C. Barber, for the children of George B. Stackpoole, referred to Clifford v. Beaumont (4 Russ. 325) ; Chaplin v. Chaplin (3 P. Wms. 229); Co. Litt. (p. 298 a.); 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74, s. 47 ; Sugden on Real Property (p. 196, pi. 14); 2 Sug. on Pow. (p. 281 (6th ed.)); Langston v. Blackmare (Amb. 289); Daubeny v. Cockburn (1 Mer. 626); Alexander v. Alexander (2 Ves. sen. 640); Sadler v. Pratt (5 Sim. 632). Mr. Toller, in reply. the master of the rolls reserved judgment. March 22, 1854. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. The question in this cause depends upon the effect of four deeds of the 14th of August 1838- whether, in fact, they are binding to any, and if any, to what extent, on the interest of the Plaintiff? [433] In order to arrive at a just conclusion, and to make the grounds upon which I have proceeded in arriving at that conclusion clear, I think it necessary to state, in greater detail than I should in an ordinary case think advisable, the fact connected with the execution and operation of these deeds. Sir Thomas Blackett, by his will made shortly before his death, which took place in 1792, devised certain real estates in Northumberland and Durham, to one of his nephews for life, and after his decease, for the benefit of his issue male, with remainder, in default of such issue, to certain uses in favour of Thomas Richard Beaumont and Diana his wife, and their issue, which Diana Beaumont was one of the natural daughters of the testator, with remainder, in default of such issue, to similar uses in favour of William Lee and Sophia his wife, who was another of the natural daughters of the testator, and in default of their issue, to the use of Louisa Wentworth, the other of the testator's natural daughters, or such person as she should first intermarry with (if before twenty-one, with the consent of the trustees named in the will, or the survivor of them), and which person the testator directed should previously make a ItBEAV.ttl AGASSIZ V. SQUIRE 171 settlement upon his daughter Louisa, to the satisfaction of his trustees; and he directed, that the property should be held on trust for Louisa, or such person as she should so first marry, for their lives and the life of the survivor, and after the decease of the survivor, to the use of all the sons of the body of Louisa, by such first or any after-taken husband, with remainder over, in default of such issue. By the same will, the testator charged his property with an annuity of 3000, which he gave in trust for his daughter Louisa Wentworth, for life, until her mar-[434]-riage, under and subject to the restrictions already stated, or for her life, and that when she should so marry, as already mentioned, then it should be upon trust for her and her issue, subject to the same restrictions and interest as he had already declared respecting an annuity of 3000 in favour of Sophia Lee and her issue, which were to this effect, viz., to Mrs. Lee and her husband, for their lives and the life of the survivor, and after the decease of the survivor, to the use of any one or more of the sons of Sophia Lee, and of the sons of such sons, as the survivor of Sophia and her husband should, by deed or will, appoint, and in default of appointment, to the use of the first and other sons of Sophia, successively, in tail male, and in default of such issue, to sink into the estate on which the annuity was charged. It is to be observed, in the first place, that this rent charge creates no interest in favour of daughters, but that it is confined to: the sons and sons of sons of the testator's daughter Louisa. The testator, by his will, also gave to his daughter Louisa a legacy of 10,000, payable in manner following (that is to say) 5000 upon her marriage, with such consent as aforesaid, and 5000 within two years next afterwards. Louisa Wentworth, on the 4th of April 1794, and while still an infant, married Mr. Stackpoole, but without having obtained the stipulated consent, and without any settlement having been made, as was directed by the will of the testator. This circumstance, however, as was decided by Lord Thurlow in 1796, did not affect Mrs. Stackpoole'a interest in the rent charge of 3000, which still remained as given by the will, although the intended settlement was never executed; and under the [435] decree of the Court of Chancery it was conveyed to trustees, in trust as to one-third to Mrs. Stackpoole for her separate use, and as to the remaining two-thirds to her husband during their joint lives. There were issue three children of the marriage: the Plaintiff, Mrs. Agassiz, who was born on the 30th of December 1796; the Defendant George B. W. Stackpoole; and William W. Stackpoole, who has since died, leaving no issue. In March 1813 Mr. Staekpoole effected an insurance on the life of his wife, Louisa, in the Equitable Assurance Society, for the sum of 5000, which he kept up during his life. He died on the 15th of April 1817, intestate. On his death, his widow treated this policy as her own property, and duly paid the premiums as they became due, until her decease. This policy was the property of Mr. Stackpoole, and, consequently, his children might claim three-fourths of the produce thereof, on duly repaying, to the estate of their mother, the premiums paid by her; still this claim is not made, and practically, for the purpose of the decision in this ease, the policy and the monies thereby secured may be treated as the property of Louisa Wentworth. Shortly after her husband's death, and in the month of July 1817, Mrs. Stackpoole effected a policy for 5000 upon her own life, in the Westminster Insurance Company, and another for 5000 in the Pelican. All these policies were kept up by Mrs. Stackpoole, and were subsisting in the month of March 1822, when Mrs. Stackpoole married the Defendant, Mr. Clifford, her second husband. On this occasion, marriage articles, bearing date the [436] 18th of March 1822, were duly exeeuted. The parties to it were Mr. Clifford of the first part, Mrs. Stackpoole of the second part, and Mr. Beaumont and the Defendant Mr. Squire ^the trustees of the settlement) of the third part. This deed recited, that Sir Thomas Blackett had, by his will, given the rent charge of 3000 as therein mentioned, and also that he had given to his daughter, Louisa Wentworth, the legacy of 10,000, as above stated. It recited the three policies of assurance, and that it was intended, by the parties thereto, to vest the rent charge, the three policies, and the legacy, in the trustees, upon the trusts thereinafter mentioned, and thereupon, by this deed, Mr. Clifford and his intended wife covenanted to assure the rent charge of 3000 per 172 AGASSIZ V. SQUIRE IS BEAV. 437. annum to the trustees, in trust thereout to pay the premiums on the three policies of assurance, then to paj the annual sum of 500 to Mr. Clifford for his life, and to pay the residue to Mrs. Glifford for her separate use, without power of anticipation. In case Mr. Clifford should survive his wife, the trustees were to divide the rent charge in the following manner, viz., 600 to George B. W. Stackpoole, during the joint lives of himself and Mr. Clifford; 600 to William W. Stackpoole, during the joint lives of himself and Mr. Clifford ; 300 to the Plaintiff (Mrs. Agassiz), during, the joint lives of herself and Mr. Clifford; and the residue, being 1500 per annum, was to be paid to Mr. Clifford for his life. This deed, therefore, did not affect to deal with the rent charge beyond the life of the survivor of Mr. and Mrs. Clifford. By the same articles, Mr. Clifford and Mr. Staekpoole next proceeded to covenant with the trustees, to vest in them the three policies of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Topham v The Duke of Portland
...involved in these transactions must avoid the appointments in their whole extent; Daubeny v. Cockburn (1 Mer. 626); Agassis v. Squire (18 Beav. 431). If the purpose be the test, the whole act, depending upon the purpose, must abide the test. In all these cases of bargain, there is a residue......
-
Hanley v M'Dermott
...L. R. 9 Eq. 443. Clay v. WillisENR 1 B. & C. 372. Lee v. FernieENR 1 Beav. 483. Hobbs v. Parsons 2 Sm. & Gif. 212. Agassiz v. SquireENR 18 Beav. 431. Tardrew v. Howell 2 Gif. 530. Davis v. UphillENR 1 Swans. 129. Sir Charles Cox's Creditors 3 P. Wills. 341. Equity of redemption in a term — ......
-
Birley v Birley
...for them, and, upon every principle, was a fraud on the power and invalid; Daubeny v. Oofkburn (1 Merivale, 626) ; Agassis v. Squire (18 Beav. 431); Lee v. Fernie (1 Beav. 483); Salmon v. (3 De Gex & Sm. 343). 25BEAV.3M. BIRLEY V. BIRLEY 653 That in Tucker v. Sanger, Chief Baron Alexander w......