Attorney General v Baker and Platt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 January 1859 |
| Date | 21 January 1859 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 742
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
Referred to, Feyer v. Morland, 1876, Ch. D. 684, Attorney-General v. Lord Rathdonnell, 1893, 32 L. R. Ir. 591.
the attorney generals. baker and platt Jan 21, 1859-Upon an information by the Attorney General to recover succession duty, payable in respect of the succession of one E. to a sum of 20001 derived from W. P as predecessor, a special verdict was found, which stated that J. P died intestate leaving W. P., his brother ; and A. S., the wife of J. H. S., claimed to be a daughter of a sister of J. P. That by indenture, icciting that letters of administration had been granted to W^ P., and in order to obviate any doubts or differences which might arise touching any share which J. H S. or A S might be entitled to in the personal effects of J. P , W. P had proposed and agreed on having a general release from J. H. S. and A. S to transfer 30,0001. to be settled upon trusts for J H. S. and A. S. and the children of their marriage, to which proposal J. H 8. and A. S. had consented and agreed ; that the sum of 30,0001 had been directed to be transferred to trustees by W P, and that J H. S and A. S had that dciy executed a general release to W P of all claims against him as administrator of J. P. or otherwise ; it was declared that B and O. should stand possessed of the 30,0001. iu trust to pay the interest to J. H. S. for life, and after his death to A S. for her life, and after the death of the survivor, if there should be an only child iu Lrust for such child, and if there should be two or moie children in trust for such children in such shares as J. H. S and A. S, or the survivor, should appoint, and in case no child should live to attain a vested interest in trust for the survivor of J. H. S and A. S. absolutely^' Contemporaneously with the indenture a release was executed by J. H S. and A. S. to W. P There were ten children of the marriage, and J. H. S. and A S. having appointed a sum of 20001. to E one of such children, J. H. S and A. S died in or before March 1854 Held, that the defendant was entitled to judgment, because it could not be inferred that W. P. was either the sole predecessor of E within the meaning of s 2, or a joint predecessor within the meaning of s. 13. Dubitante Channell, B. -Per Watson, B., that J. H. S. and A. S. were the settlors [Referred to, Fryer v. Norland, 1876, 3 Ch. D. 684, Attorney-Genetal v Laid Rathdannell, 1893, 32 L. R Ir 591.] This was an information by the Attorney General for Succession Duty payable by the defendants as trustees of [20] a certain settlement, m respect of the succession of one E. Pigott, described as a stranger in blood to Wadham Pigott and John Pigott, to tfce sum of 20001., such duty being calculated at the rate of 101 per cent per annum upon the value thereof, and amounting to the sum of 2001. The first count alleged that though the defendants had paid 201., parcel thereof to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, yet they had not paid the residue of the monies claimed Second count That the defendants are indebted to her Majesty in the sum of 5001. for certain other duties under the management of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and in the further sum of 5001 for money had and received to the use of her Majesty, and for money found to be due fiom them to her Majesty for divers accountings, &c. Plea. Not indebted. A special verdict was taken by consent, which was in substance as follows:- Chi the 1st day of January, 1816, John Pigott died intestate, possessed of personal estate and effects exceeding 60,0001 and leaving his biother Wadham Pigott, and 4H.&N.21 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL V. BAKER 743 one Ann Smyth, the wife of John Hugh Smyth, claimed to be a daughter of a sister of the said John Pigott and Wadham Pigott. On the 12th day of April, 1817, a certain indenture was made by and between the said Wadham Pigott of the first part, John Hugh Smyth and Ann his wife of the second part, and Jeremiah Osborne and the defendant John Baker of the third part. And by the said indenture, after reciting, as the facts were, that John Pigott, the brother of Wadham Pigott, had lately died intestate, and that letters of administration of his goods, chattels and credits, had been duly granted to Wadham Pigott; and that in order to obviate and prevent any doubts or differences which might arise between the parties thereto of the first arid [21] second parts, touching or concerning any rights, shares, or interests of and in the personal estate and effects of John Pigott deceased, wlich Ann Smyth or J. H. Smyth, in right of Ann Smyth, or in any other right or capacity, had, or might have, or be entitled unto, or set up, or claim against Wadham Pigott in respect thereof, Wadham Pigott had proposed and agreed, upon having a general release, from J H. Smyth and Ann his wife of all such claims and demands, to transfer the sum of 30,0001, 41. per cent Consolidated Bank Annuities, in the books of the governor and company of the Bank of England, into the names of trustees, to be settled upon the trusts, for the benefit of J. H. Smyth and Ann his wife and the children of their marriage, thereinafter declared, to which proposal J. H. Smyth and Ann his wife had consented and agreed , and that the said sum of 30,0001., Bank Annuities, had been directed to be transferred by Wadham Pigott into the names of J. Osborne and J. Baker, the trustees chosen and appointed for the purposes aforesaid : And that J. H. Smyth and Ann his wife had that day executed to Wadham Pigott a release of all claim and demand which they or either of them had, or could or might hereafter have, against Wadham...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
FLoyer v Bankes
...257); Sweeting v. Sweeting (1 Drew. 331); LordSaltounv. [311] The Lord Advocate (3 Macq. Scotch App. Ca. 659) ; Attorney-General v. Baker (4 H. & N. 19); Attorney-General v. Yelverton (7 Ibid. 306); Rt Jenkinson (24 Beav. 64); Oldfield v. Preston (3 De G. F. & J. 398). Judgment reserved. No......
-
Re Ramsay's Settlement
...not the tenant in tail, was the predecessor. This case has since been followed by the Court of Exchequer in Attorney-General v. Baker (4 Hurl. & Nor. 19), where, to settle differences between an uncle arid niece, a deed was executed by them, by which 30,000 was settled on the niece for life......
-
Revenue Commissioners v Pelly
...O'Byrne: JJ. (1) L. R. 1 Ch. App. 1. (2) [1932] I. R. 687, at p. 712. (3) [1901] 1 Q. B. 123. (1) (1930) 9 Annotated Tax Cases, 157. (2) 4 H. & N. 19. (3) L. R. 6 Q.B. D. 177. (1) 31 S. L. R. (2) L. R. 5 H. L. 524. (3) 32 L. R. Ir. 574. (4) 21 R. (Ct. of Sess.) 743. (5) L. R. 8 App. Cas. 82......
-
Attorney General v Lord Braybrooke
...but from whom is the interest of the successor derived ? The test is, who has the jus disponendi1* The Attorney General v. Bakffi (4 H & N. 19, 26) Here, not the son alone, but the father and son The life estate could not have been given to the son without the consent of the father, who mig......