Askham v Barker
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 April 1850 |
| Date | 30 April 1850 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 1152
ROLLS COURT
[499] askham v. barker. April 30, 1850. A father had a power of appointing to any of his children. Having, in breach of trust, obtained possession of part of the trust funds, he, in 1834, appointed that part to his daughters, in exclusion of his son, under an agreement, that that part should afterwards be conveyed to him, in exchange for an estate of less value. In 1844 he executed a second appointment, ;reciting the previous dealing with the fund, and he thereby appointed the remaining portion of the trust property "and all other " the property comprised in the settlement, to his daughters. Held, that the first appointment was void; and, secondly, that the portion of the property comprised therein was not appointed by the second deed. This case came before the Court upon general demurrer to the whole bill, which, in effect, stated, that by a settlement made on the marriage of William Askham and Elizabeth his wife, certain property was vested in trustees for the husband and wife, for their respective lives, with remainder to all and every or such one or more of the children of the marriage, in such shares and with or without power of revocation as William Askham should, by deed, &c., appoint, and, in default, to the use of all and every the children equally. In 1834 the trustees had, in breach of trust, lent a portion of the trust money to William Askham. At this time there were five children of the marriage, viz., the Plaintiff John and four daughters. The bill alleged that the surviving trustee of the settlement was desirous of retiring and being released from his liability under the breach of trust, and that, in order to release such trustee, and to protect William Askham the father from being called on to pay the amount due from him, it was agreed between the father and his four daughters, that the father should appoint to his four daughters, so much of the trust fund as was then in his hands, upon an agreement, that the appointees should make no claim against the trustee, and should [500] not call on the father to pay the amount; and it was agreed, that immediately after the appointment, the sums appointed should be assigned to the father, ostensibly in exchange for some real estate belonging to him, of less value than the fund appointed. On the 18th March 1834 William Askham accordingly appointed the trust funds then in his hands to the four daughters, and on the 25th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Topham v The Duke of Portland
...C. C. 395) is the type: and, thirdly, cases which combine both those defects, such as Aleyn v. Belchier (1 Eden, 132); Askham v. Barker (12 Beav. 499); Farmer v. Martin (2 Sim. 502); and Jackson v. Jackson (4 Bra. C. C. 462). In all these the vice was twofold : the property was diverted fro......
-
Agassiz v Squire
...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. & ......
-
Askham v Barker
...is another ground for setting aside the appointment. This case was virtually decided by Lord Langdale on the demurrer, Akliam v. Barker (12 Beav. 499). Mr. Roupell and Mr. Denison, contra. The daughters, at the time of the appointment, were perfectly competent to act for themselves, the you......
-
Duggan v Duggan
...Sugd., 91. Topham v. Duke of PortlandENRUNKENRELR 31 Beav. 525; 1 D. J. & S. 517; 11 H. L. C. 32; L. R. 5 Ch. App. 40. Askham v. BarkerENR 12 Beav. 499. Weir v. Chamney 1 Ir. Ch. R. 295. D'Abbadie v. Bizoin I. R. 5 Eq. 205. Davis v. Uphill 1 Swanst. 129. Skelton v. Flanagan I. R. 1 Eq. 362,......