Arnold v Arnold
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 February 1835 |
| Date | 02 February 1835 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 39 E.R. 983
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 4 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 79; see Guthrie v. Walrond, 1883, 22 Ch. D., 576; Northey v. Paxton, 1888, 60 L. T., 31.
arnold v. arnold. Rolls. Nov. 12, 15, 1834; Feb. 2, 1835. [S. C. 4 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 79 ; see Guthrie v. Walrmd, 1883, 22 Ch. D., 576 ; Norihey v. Paxton, 1888, 60 L. T., 31.] The testator gave to each of certain infant nephews and nieces, by name, 400 " with compound interest at 5 per cent, per annum, from the day of their birth, to be settled on their marrying or attaining twenty-one years, whichever may first happen." Held, that compound interest at 5 per cent, was to run on each of the legacies from the birthdays of the several legatees till their marriage or majority respectively, and not merely to the day of the testator's death. A bequest of " my wines and property in England," held to pass the testator's property in England of every description, including money in the funds and at his banker's, debts, and arrears of a pension due to him, and not confined to property eju-sdem generis with wines. 984 ARNOLD V. ARNOLD t MY. ft K. 886. The testator desired that A, B, and C might each enjoy, during life, the interest of 800 sterling, the principal to devolve eventually to his residuary legatees. He directed the residue of his property to be divided into three equal parts, one part to each of his brothers and his sister; and if his brothers and sister should not survive him, or have legal issue living at the testator's death, then their shares to-devolve in equal proportions to the survivors, as well as the shares that might have been devised to their issue. The testator's estate was not sufficient to pay the legacies in full. Held, upon the death of one of the tenants for life, that an apportionment of the legacy of 800, set apart to answer her life-interest, fell into the residue, and was not given over to the residuary legatees in their individual character; and that the surviving tenants for life were entitled to have the deficiencies in their annuities satisfied out of the released fund. The will of George Arnold, a Lieut.-Colonel in the service of the East India Company, bearing date 18th of September 1828, and executed in India, where he and his wife and family then resided, contained this pas-[366]-sage : " I give and bequeath the following sums;-to my dear wife, Anne Martinez, 1000 sterling; also my wines and property in England. To my dear child, Sophia Mary Arnold, 15,000 sterling, to be kept in trust by my executors till she shall attain the age of twenty-one years, or marry," &c. After giving directions with regard to the settlement of this sum upon his daughter's marriage, and limiting it over in the event of her dying before the legacy became payable, the testator bequeathed a similar sum of 15,000* sterling to any child of which his wife might be pregnant at his death, under the same-stipulations. He then gave a number of pecuniary legacies to different relations, and among others the following:-" To each of my dear nieces and nephews, if living at my death, Eliza Mathilda Phippa, Eloisa Ami Phipps, Edward Constantino Phipps, and George William Phipps, 400, with compound interest at 5 per cent, per annum from the day of their birth, to be settled on their marrying or attaining twenty-one years, whichever may first occur. Should any of them not marry or attain twenty-one years, the sums to devolve in like manner to the surviving children in equal proportions, failing which, to my residuary legatees." The testator died in India on the 1st of .October 1828. The bill was filed by his infant children, for the purpose of having the estate administered according to the trusts of the will. On taking the accounts before the Master, it appeared that there would be a considerable deficiency of assets to answer the legacies given by the will. In calculating the amount of compound interest due in respect of the several legacies of 400 given by the testator to his nephews and nieces, all of whom were infants and unmarried at the time of his decease, the [367] Master computed interest at 5 per cent, from the respective days of the births of such nephews and nieces to the date of his report; and the report was excepted to by the Plaintiffs upon that ground. Mr. Bickersteth and Mr. Piggott, for the exception. The computation of compound interest at 5 per cent, ought to have been confined to the interval between the respective births of the legatees and the 1st of October 1828, the day of the testator's. death; and ought not to have been continued to the period at which the legacies, were to become vested on the marriage or majority of the several parties. To suppose the testator meant that compound interest should run after his own decease upon so many legacies to infant relatives is to ascribe to him a very improbable and inconvenient intention, and one which the words of the bequest by no means necessarily import. It would be impossible, indeed, for the trustees, whose duty it is, under the directions in this bequest, to appropriate and invest a sufficient sum to answer the legacies in question, to ascertain, or even to conjecture, what amount would be required for the purpose. The sums are expressed to be given to the nephews and nieces named in the will, " with compound interest at 5 per cent, per annum from the day of their birth." Till what time? Clearly till the testator's death, the time at which the will speaks, and which doubtless he had in view, as the period at which the value of the several legacies with their accumulated interest was to be ascertained;. and at the end of a year from that period, the ordinary interest at 4 per cent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Lever Bros and Another
...Randfontein Estates Gold Mining Co. v Custodian of Enemy Property (1923 AD at 581); Nisbett v Murray (5 Ves. 149); Arnold v Arnold (2 My. & K. 365); Earl of Tyrone v Marquis of Waterford (1 De G. F. & J. 613, 625); Guthrie v Walrond (22 Ch.D. 573); Clark: McKechnie v Clark (1904, 1 Ch.D. 29......
-
Tighe v Fetherstonhaugh
...v. BrandrethELR L. R. 16 Eq. 475. BakerENR 18 Beav. 372. Rogers v. Thomas 2 Kee. 8. Martin v. GloverENR 1 Coll. 269. Arnold v. ArnoldENR 2 MY. & K. 365. Lysaght v. EduardsELR 2 Ch.D.513. Goods of Shepheard 48 L.J.(N.S.) Prob.62. Lysaght v. Edwardes 2 Ch.Div. 499, 513. Fisher v. HepburnENR 1......
-
Arnold v Arnold
...English Reports Citation: 40 E.R. 638 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY Arnold and Arnold See S. C. (with note), 2 My. & K. 365. 1 t-*.. 1-44 C256] arnold '. arnold. Dec. 22, 1836 ; April 20, 1837. [See S. C. (with note), 2 My. & K. 365.] The personal assets, situate in India, of a testator who reside......
-
Campbell v M'Grain
...84, 87. Lamphier v. Despard 2 Dr. & War. 59. Swinfen v. SwinfenENR 29 Beav. 207. Lloyd's Estate 2 Jur. (N. S.) 539. Arnold v. ArnoldENR 2 My. & K. 365. Chapman v. Hart 1 Ves. 272. Will — Construction — Bequest of house, household furniture, & c., and all other effects therein — Sum of......