Attorney General, - Appellant; John Floyer and Others, - Respondents
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 July 1862 |
| Date | 15 July 1862 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 11 E.R. 814
House of Lords
Mews' Dig. xii. 248, 251. S.C. 31 L.J. Ex. 404; 9 Jur. N.S. 1; 7 L.T. 47; 10 W.R. 762; and below, 7 H. and N. 238. See note to Braybrooke v. A.-G., 9 H.L.C. 150; and cf. A.-G. v. Smythe, 9 H.L.C. 497.
' "The ATTORNEY GENERAL,-Appellant; JOHN FLOYER and Others,- Respondents [June 13, 17, 23, July 15, 1862]. [Mews' Dig. xii. 248, 251. S.C.. 31 L.J. Ex. 404; 9 Jur. NiS. 1; 7 L.T. 47; 10 W.R. 762; and below, 7 H. and N. 238. See note to Braybrooke v. A.-G., 9 H.L.C. 150; and cf. A.-G. v. Smythe, 9 H.L.C. 497.1 A. in 1776 devised certain estates to his son H. for life, with remainder to the first and other sons of H. successively in tail male. In 1810, H. and his eldest 814 A.-G. V. FLOYER [1862] IX H.L.C., 478 son W. J. executed a disentailing deed, and then resettled the estates to such uses as H. and W. J. should j ointly appoint, in default to H. for life, remainder to such uses as W. J. should appoint, in default to the uses limited by the will of A. In 1821 H. and J. W. executed a joint appointment (of the previous settled estates, and also of some now first brought into settlement by H.) to such uses as they should jointly appoint, then to H. for life, remainder to W. J. for life, remainder to the first and other sons of W. J. in tail male, remainder to the use of G. and E. (two brothers of W. J.) successively in tail * male. No other appointment was made. H. died; W. J. entered, and died without issue. G. then entered, and by a deed executed in 1855 between G. and his eldest son E. G., the entail previously created was destroyed, and the estates were conveyed to a trustee for such uses as G. and E. G. should jointly appoint, and in default, to the [478] uses of the settlement of 1821. An appointment was afterwards made, to which G., E. G., and the Respondent F. were parties, by which the estates were settled to such uses as G. and E. G. should jointly appoint, and in default to trustees to pay an annuity of 800 to E. G. during the life of his father, then to G. for life, then to trustees to pay E. G. 4000 a year, remainder to the use of E. G.'s sons successively in tail male. Under powers reserved to the existing tenant for life in the deeds of 1821 and 1855, G. charged the estates with certain sums for the benefit of younger children. G. died, and the trusts then came into operation : Held, that G.'s succession was liable to a payment of 3 per cent., his predecessor having been W. J. That E. G. took under his own disposition, on a succession likewise derived from W. J., and was liable to a duty of 3 per cent., and that G.'s younger childreti were also (as to some part of their interest) liable to a duty of 3 per cent., as deriving their succession from their brother, E. G. But as to certain estates newly bought into settlement by their grandfather H., they were held liable to a duty of only 1 per cent., and the account of the whole duty due from them was directed to be taken with reference to this allowance. In taking the account of what was due from E. G., allowance was ordered to be made for the annuity of 800 charged upon the estates, the subject of his succession. Henry Bankes, of Corfe Castle, in the county of Dorset (called afterwards the father) was seised of certain estates, which he devised to trustees for the use of his eldest son, Henry Bankes (called afterwards the son), for life, with remainder to the use of his first and other sons in tail male. The father died in September 1776. The son entered into possession. He married, and had issue a son Henry (called the grandson), who died in 1806 unmarried, and without issue. The second child of Henry the son, who, on the death of his elder brother, became the eldest surviving son, the first tenant in tail in remainder, was named William John Bankes. He became of age in 1809. In June 1810, Henry (the son), the tenant for life, and William John, the first tenant in tail, joined in executing a deed, declaring that they were desirous to destroy the [479] estate tail and to bar all remainders and reversions expectant thereon, that a recovery might be suffered for the purpose of effectuating the following uses to the use of such persons, and for such interest as Henry (the son) and William John, jointly, should appoint; and in default of appointment, to Henry (the son) for life, remainder to such uses as William John, if he survived his father, should appoint; and in default of appointment to the uses limited by the will of Henry (the father). A common recovery was suffered under this deed in Trinity term, 1810. In June 1821, Henry (the son) and John William executed a, joint deed of appointment. The deed recited that Henry (the son) was seised of other estates besides those mentioned in the preceding indenture; that it was convenient that all the estates should be held together; that he Henry (the son) and William John had, by way of family arrangement, agreed to join in settling the estates thereinafter mentioned, to the uses thereinafter limited; and that for that purpose they had agreed to execute their joint power of appointment; and it was witnessed that in execution thereof they jointly appointed the estate as follows: the lands comprised in the deed of 1810 to Henry (the son) in fee-simple, the others to such uses as Henry 815 IX H.L.C., 480 A.-G. V. FLOYER [1862] (the son) and William John should jointly appoint, in default to the use of Henry (the son) for life, remainder to William John for life, remainder to the first and other sons of William John in tail male; remainder to the use of George and the other brothers of William John, successively in tail male. Powers for charging the estates for the benefit of the younger children were also given to William John, George, and the other brothers, as they might successively come into possession. The joint power thus reserved was never executed. [480] Henry (the son) died December 1834. William John Bankes then became tenant for life in possession, and died unmarried and without issue 15 April 1855. George Bankes, his next brother, thereupon came into possession. By a deed dated 2 July 1855, made between himself, then tenant in tail in possession, and his eldest son, Edmund George, tenant in tail in expectancy, the said Edmund George with the consent of George, his father, as protector of the settlement of 1821, disentailed the settled estates therein comprised, and conveyed them to a trustee upon such uses as Edmund George and his father should by deed jointly appoint, and in default of such appointment, to the uses of the settlement of 1821. A deed of appointment was executed on the next day, 3d July 1855, to which George his son, Edmund George, and the Respondent Floyer and others were parties. It recited the settlement of 1821; the various events already mentioned, the birth of Edmund George Bankes in 1826, his marriage, the births of his two sons, H. J. Percival Bankes in February 1850, and Walter Ralph Bankes in August 1853, and it appointed and conveyed the settled estates as well those derived from Henry Bankes (the father) as those derived from Henry Bankes (the son), to such uses as George and Edmund George should appoint, and in default to trustees for terms of years to secure certain annuities, one of which was an annuity o| 800, payable to Edmund George during the life of George, his father, and, subject to these trusts, to the use of George for life, and after his decease, to the use of trustees for the life of Edmund George Bankes; remainder to his first and other sons in tail male, and on failure etc., to the second son of George and his sons in tail male, and so on ; and among the trusts thereby...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
(Attorney-General on Behalf of HM) v Glyn Mills and Company
...of Section 12 of the Succession Duty Act, 1853, and on the decisions of this House in Braybrooke's case, 9 H.L.C. 150 and A. G. v. Floyer, 9 H.L.C. 477. But this seems to me to be an untenable view. The charges themselves were in fact by their express terms created under the Settlement of 1......
-
The Right Honorable Edward Baron O'Neill, Successor to Real Estates Under The Wills of The Right Honorable C. H. St. J. Earl O'Neill, Deceased
...L. R. 4 H. L. 100, 122. Le Marchant v. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue 1 Ex. Div. 185. The Attorney-General v. Floyer 9 H. L. Cas. 477. Succession duty Incumbrances created or incurred by the successor Sinking fund for paying of antecedent incumbrances Release 16 & 17 Vict. c. 51, s. 34......
-
Attorney General, - Appellant; Sir F. C. Smythe, Bart., - Respondent
...Bart. -Respondent Mews' Dig. xii. 248, 252. S.C. 31 L.J. Ex. 404. See note to Braybrooke v. A.-G. (9 H.L.C. 150); and cf. A.-G. v. Floyer (9 H.L.C. 477). A.-G. V. SMYTHE [1862] IX H.L.C., 498 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL,-Appellant; Sir F. C. SMYTHE, Bart.,-Respondent [June 13, 17, 23; July 15, 186......