Attorney General v Lord Weymouth and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1743 |
| Date | 01 January 1743 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 11
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Jeffries v. Alexander, 1860, 8 H. L. C. 651, 673; Arden v. Arden, 1885, 29 Ch. D. 707.
Case 8.-attoeney-general against Lord weymouth and Others. [1743.] [See Jeffries v. Alexander, 1860, 8 H. L. C. 651, 673 ; Arden v. Arden, 1885, 29 (..L D. 707.] Devise of land to be sold, and the residue of the money, after payment of debts, &c., to charity. The devise held to be void, by stat. of Mortmain. (See Attorney-General v. Greaves, and Attorney-General v. Tomkins, post, 155 & 216, and notes there.)-[S. C. Coxe, MSS. W. 66.] In Lincoln's Inn Hall. Hilary Term, 16 Geo. 25 1743. Sir John James, late of Saint Edmund's Bury, Baronet, by his last will, dated 15th May 1740, devised to Richard Dalton, James Calthorpe, and Joshua Grigby (the executors of his will), their heirs and assigns, for the use of them, their heirs and assigns, all and every his manors, messuages, lands, tenements and hereditaments, both freehold and copyhold, and all his real estate whatsoever, in trust, to sell and dispose thereof, as soon as conveniently might be after his decease, and to pay all the monies to arise by sale thereof, and the rents, issues, and profits in the mean time, and until such sale (all necessary charges deducted), unto such person or persons, and for such uses, intents, and purposes, as he had thereafter given and bequeathed the same; and then he bequeathed 4000 to his late brother's widow, Elizabeth James; and 4000 to the said James Calthorpe; and to the said Joshua Grigby, and one Orbell Bay, 1000, to be laid out by them as a fund for certain charitable uses, which he forebore to mention, because they knew his designs as to charities (" and he did not doubt their strict com-" pliance therewith." L. R.); and likewise 200 to Joshua Grigby, for his care and trouble; and then he declared his mind to be, that his debts, funeral expences, and legacies by his said will given and bequeathed, should be paid and satisfied by and out of his personal estate, if the same should be sufficient for that purpose ; but if the same 1,2 ATTORNEY GENERAL V. WEYMOUTH (LORD) AMB. 21. should fall short, then he further declared, that such deficiency should be [21] made good, by and out of the monies to arise from the sale of his real estate, or of the rents ,and profits in the mean time, [and] subject to the payment of his said debts, legacies, and funeral expences, he gave and bequeathed all the monies to arise by sale of his real estate, and by the rents and profits thereof in the mean time, and until such sale, and also all his personal estate, unto the said Richard Dalton, James Calthorpe, and Joshua Grigby, his said executors, in trust, to pay over one equal moiety thereof to the Governors of the Hospital of Bethlem, in London, for the benefit, use, and support of incurable lunatics [to be maintained in the said Hospital], and upon trust to pay over the other moiety thereof to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank of Ireland v Solomon
...R. 359. (2) [1922] 1 I. R. 139. (3) [1935] I. R. 782. (4) L. R. 19 Eq. 453. (5) [1945] I. R. 419. (6) 8 Ves. 382. (7) 1 Ves. Sen. 108. (8) Amb. 20. (9) Amb. (10) Amb. 216. (11) Amb. 635. (12) Amb. 367. (13) 15 L. R. I. 219; 19 L. R. I 49. (14) [1946] I. R. 451. (1) Amb. 614. (2) [1919] A. C......
-
Robinson v Geldard
...of the argument: first, as to the charitable legacies and the question of construction generally, Attorney-General v. [738] Lard Weymouth (Amb. 20), Attorney-General v. Graves (Amb. 155), Attorney-General v. Tomkins (Amb. 216), Negus v. Coulter (Amb. 367), Waller v. Childs (Amb. 524), Attor......
-
James Jeffries and Others, - Appellants; John Biddle Alexander and Others, and Attorney General, - Respondents
...that was the case of a personal disability attaching to the creditor only, but where, as in the case of The Attorney-General v. Weymouth (Amb. 20), the disability affected the person making the devise, equity treated it very differently. Bust v. Cooper (Cowp. 629), recognised and applied th......
-
Stewart v Barton
...v. Blake 10 Ir. Jur. 350. Beardwood v. Coates 18 W. R. 1154. Donnellan v. O'Neil I. R. 5 Eq. 538. Attorney-General v. Lord WeymouthENR Ambler, 20. Crofts v. LumleyENR 6 H. L. C. 672. Mitchinson v. CarterENR 8 T. R. 57. General v. LawesENR 8 Hare, 32. Garvey v. Hibbert 19 Ves. 125. Milner v.......
-
Changing Views on Historical Conservation in Cities
...sur-rounds zoning and land-use regula-tion in cities across the country.Perhaps as important as the classiccase of Village of Euclid v. Ambler 20which upheld the constitutionalityof zoning in the 1920s, is the U.S.Supreme Court’s 1978 decision inPenn Central Transportation Co.v. the City of......