Attorney General v Bright
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 June 1836 |
| Date | 25 June 1836 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 48 E.R. 550
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 5 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 325. Commented on, In re Wynch's Trusts, 1854, 5 De G. M. & G. 188; 43 E. R. 842. (with note).
550 ATTOKNEY-GENBRAL V. BRIGHT 1 KEEN 57. [67] the attorney-general e. bright. June 11, 25, 1836. [S. C. 5 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 325. Commented on, In re Synch's Trusts, 1854, 5 De G. M. & G. 188; 43 E. R. 842 (with note).] The testator gave the sum of £500 stock to S. T., to receive the interest during life, and then to her issue ; but in case of her death without issue, the said £500 stock to be divided between her father's children by his second wife; and in default of any children by his second wife being living at the testator's death, over. Held, that S. T. took an absolute interest in the sum of £500 stock. The will of Thomas Edwards, dated the 13th of April 1835, was in the following words: "I bequeath to my brother, Joseph Edwards, and his wife, during their natural lives, the interest of £500 4 per cent, stock, which will produce the sum of £20 per annum, to them or the survivor of them during life ; and after the death of the survivor of them, I give the sum of £500 to Susan Thomas, daughter of Joseph Thomas, to receive the interest during life, and then to her issue ; but, in case of her -death without issue, the said £500 stock to be divided between her father's children by his second wife, share and share alike ; and in default of any children by his second wife being living at my death, I give the same to his said second wife." Joseph Edwards and his wife received the dividends of the stock during their lives. After the death of the survivor of them, the fund was transferred to the account of Susan Thomas, who received the dividends until her death, which took place on the 15th of May [58] 1836. She died without issue, and the question was, whether the fund belonged to her personal representative, or to the children of Susan Thomas's father, by his second wife. Mr. Torriano, for the representative of Susan Thomas, contended that, if the subject of the gift had been real estate, Susan Thomas would have taken an estate tail under the gift to her during her life, aud then to her issue ; and the gift being of personal estate, she took an absolute interest: Chandless v. Price (3 Ves. 99). Mr. Havens, contra, insisted that this was a good executory devise, and that in the event which had happened, the limitation over to the children of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Trusts of the Annuity of £600 given by the Will of John Wynch, deceased, and The Act 10 & 11 Vict c. 96. ex parte Wynch
...in Knight v. Ellis, 2 Bro. C. C. 570, approved of and held not to have been overruled; and the cases of The Attorney-General v. Bright, 2 Keen, 57, Tate v. Clarke, 1 Beav. 100, Jordan \. Lowe, 6 Beav. 350, and Bird v. Webster, 1 Drew. 338, commented upon.-By the Lord Chancellor and the Lord......
-
Mansergh v Campbell
...C. 377); Coke, Lit. (p. 144 b.); Statute de Donis; Ex parte JVynch (1 Smale & G. 427 ; 5 De Gex, M. & G. 188); Attorney-General v. Bright (2 Keen, 57); Knight v. Ellis (2 Bro. C. C. 569); Wilson v. Maddistm (2 Y. & C. (C. C.) 372). the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. In this case I ......
-
Evans v Jones
...was an estate, tail: Parr v. Swindels (4 Buss, 283), Mogg v. Mogg (1 Mer. 654), Tate v. Clarice (1 Beav_ 100), Attorney-General v. Bright (2 Keen, 57), Jesson v. Wright (5 M. & S. 95 j 2 Bligh, 1). Mr. Bacon, for the Defendant, Ann Thomas, cited, upon the same point, Harrison: v. Harrison (......
-
Re Andrew's Will
...one and sets at rest the discrepancy between the decisions in Knight v. Ellis (2 Bro. C. C. 570) and The Attorney-General v. Bright (2 Keen, 57). It establishes that where an express life interest in personalty is given or clearly expressed to A. B. with a gift to A. B.'s issue, A. B. takes......