Badham v Mee
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 39 E.R. 242
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C., 1 My. & K., 32; see Jones v. Winwood, 1838, 3 M. & W., 675; Frewen v. Hamilton, 1877, 47 L. J. Ch., 393; Wilkins v. Jodrell, 1879, 13 Ch. D., 571; Re Sprague, 1880, 43 L. T., 238.
[631] badham r. mee. Rolls. June 28, 1830. [S. C., 1 My. & K., 32 ; see Jmes v. irimrooil, 1838, 3 M. & W., 675 ; Frewen v. Hamilton, 1877, 47 L. J. Ch., 393; {{-"ilkin-K v. Jodrell, 1879, 13 Ch. D., 571 ; Re Spntffue, 1880, 43 L. T., 238.] A testatrix devised lands to trustees, in trust, in the first place, at their discretion, to pay an annuity to her son A, and next to apply the rents to the maintenance, education, and bringing up of the three children of A during A's life ; the sole survivor of the three children attained twenty-one in the lifetime of A. Held, that the interest of such surviving child in the surplus rents and profits did not cease on his attaining twenty-one, but that he continued entitled to them during the life of his father. Patience Mee, by her will, devised the Tiled House estate to trustees, upon trust that they should receive the rents, issues, and profits thereof as the same should from time to time become due, and in the first place, according to their will and pleasure, and not otherwise allow and pay, yearly or oftener, to or for the use or benefit of her son, Richard Mee the elder, any sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole in any one year the sum of £50, but so as her son during his life should have no other estate, right, or interest in the messuage, farm, and lands, than her trustees, or the survivors or survivor of them and his heirs, should, in their or his free and uncontrolled power and discretion, think fit and proper ; and in the next place, should pay, apply, and dispose of the rents, issues, and profits of the messuage, farm, and lands, unto and for the maintenance, education, and bringing up of Richard Mee, Sarah Mee, and John Mee, the children of her son Richard Mee, during the life of her son. The residue of her real and personal estate she gave to her two daughters. Richard Mee the elder was still living; Richard Mee the son and Sarah Mee were dead; John Mee had long since attained the age of twenty-one ; and one question in I RUSS. & M. 632. HALLIWELL '('. TAXNER 243 the cause was, whether John Mee had any interest in the rents of the Tiled House estate after he attained twenty-one. Mr. Treslove and Mr. Rolt'e, for the residuary devisees of Patience Mee. [632] The devise being only for the maintenance, education, and bringing up of three of the children of Richard Mee the elder, must be intended to be confined to their minority (see Amb., 66.'i). To educate and bring them up was the object of the bequest, and maintenance is referred to merely as incidental to the other principal purposes. Whenever there ceased to be any one of them who was under age, the direction to the trustees to apply the rents towards their education and bringing up could no longer be carried into effect; and from that time the rents and profits were undisposed of, except by the residuary gift (Hanthi/ v. (riliiert, Jacob, 354). Mr. Bickersteth and Mr. Wright, contra, cited Ahmmlei- v. Macr.uttork (1 Cox, 391). the master of the rolls [Sir John Leach] observed that, though the terms " maintenance, education, and bringing up," where no period was fixed except what was implied in the import of the words themselves, would have reference to minority, yet here the testatrix had limited a different period, namely, the life of the father; and he, therefore, held, that John Mee, as the survivor of the three children, was entitled to the surplus rents and profits during the life of his father.
English Reports Citation: 39 E.R. 593
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See S. C. (with note), 1 Russ. & My., 631.
[32] badham v. mee. lldls. Nor. 12, 13, Dee.. 14, 1832. /f$.S~ ò/ ? . / 63 [See S. C. (with note), 1 Russ. & My., 631.] ' i R. M. made a settlement of real estate to the use of himself for life, with a power to appoint to any one or more of his sons in fee or otherwise, and in default of appointment, to his first and other sons in tail, with remainder to himself in fee. He became bankrupt, and subsequently to his bankruptcy appointed to his eldest son in fee : Held, that the appointment could not enure as an appointment to a base fee, determinable on the extinction of the prior estates tail, because such a limitation would have been bad in the settlement creating the power. òQncere, Whether the power was destroyed by the bankruptcy, the Court considering that the invalidity of the appointment rendered it unnecessary to determine that point. At the hearing of the original cause 011 the 23d of June 1830, the Master of the Rolls directed a case to be stated for the opinion of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas ; and the case was accordingly stated as follows : - "At the date and execution of the indentures next hereinafter stated, Patience Mee, widow, deceased, and Richard Mee the elder, or one of them, were or was seised in fee simple of the lands and hereditaments comprised in the said indentures. " By indentures of lease and release, bearing elate respectively the 24th and 25th of April 1794, the release being made between, and duly executed by, Patience Mee of the first part, the said Richard Mee the elder, therein described as Richard Mee, of the second part, the Rev. John Durant of the third part, Margaret Durant of the fourth part, the Rev. John Dudley and Abrather Hawkes of the fifth part, and Sparry Peshall and George Durant of the sixth part ; being the settlement made previous to the marriage of the said Richard Mee the elder with Margaret Durant, which was afterwards solemnized, the said Patience Mee and Richard 594 BADHAM V. MEE 1 MY. & K. 33. Mee respectively granted, bargained, sold, and released certain lands, tenements, and hereditaments therein particularly described, unto John Dudley and Abrather [33] Hawkes, in their actual possession then being, to hold the same to them, their heirs and assigns, to the uses thereinafter expressed, that is to say, to the use of the said Patience Mee and Richard Mee, their heirs and assigns respectively, according to their several estates and interests in the premises immediately before the execution of the aaid deed, until the intended marriage between the said Richard Mee and Margaret Durant should be solemnized; and after the solemnization thereof, to the use of the said Sparry Peshall and George Durant, their executors, administrators, and assigns, for the term of ninety-nine years, upon certain trusts, and subject thereto, to the use of the said Richard Mee and his assigns for life, without impeachment of waste; and from and after the determination of that estate, by forfeiture or otherwise, to the use of John Dudley and Abrather Hawkes, and their heirs during the natural life of the said Richard Mee, in trust to preserve the contingent remainders thereinafter limited ; but nevertheless to permit the said Richard Mee and his assigns, during his natural life, to take the rents, issues, and profits of the said premises to his and their own use; and from and after the decease of the said Richard Mee, to the end, intent, and purpose that the said Margaret Durant and her assigns, in case she should survive the said Richard Mee, should receive and take, during the term of her natural life, out of the rents, issues, and profits of the said hereditaments, one annuity or yearly rent-charge of £150, payable as therein mentioned, which said annuity was to be in lieu of all dower and thirds; and subject to the said annuity, to the use of the said Sparry Peshall and George Durant, their executors, administrators, and assigns, for and during the term of 600 years, to commence from the day of the death of the said Richard Mee, without impeachment of waste, upon certain trusts; and subject thereto, to the use of [34] such one or more of the son or sons of the said Richard Mee on the body of the said Margaret Durant lawfully to be begotten, and in such shares and proportions, and for such estate and estates, in fee simple or otherwise, and under and subject to such charges, provisions, conditions, and agreements in favour of other the child or children of the said intended marriage, as the said Richard Mee in and by any deed or writing, deeds or writings, with or without power of revocation, by him to be duly executed in the presence of, and attested by three or more credible witnesses, or by his last will and testament in writing, by him to be duly executed in the presence of, and attested by three or more credible witnesses, should grant, convey, give, devise, limit, direct, or appoint the said premises, or any part thereof. And for or in default of any such grant, conveyance, gift, devise, limitation, or appointment, and subject thereto, and as to any part or parts of the said premises as should not be disposed of, or when and as the estates thereby limited should respectively fall in, cease, and determine, and subject thereto, to the use of the firat son of the body of the said Richai'd Mee on the body of the said Margaret Durant lawfully to be begotten, in tail general; remainder to the use of the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and all and every other the son and sons of the body of the said Richard Mee on the body of the said Margaret Duraut lawfully to be begotten, in tail general; remainder to the use of the right heirs of the said Richard Mee for ever. And it was by the said indenture declared, that it should be lawful for the said Richard Mee, at any time or times after the solemnization of the said intended marriage, whilst he should continue solvent, and not become bankrupt, by and with the privity and consent of the said Sparry Peshall and George Durant, or the survivor of them, his executors, or administrators, to be testified [35] by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Agnes Ryan and Mary Ryan v John Keogh, Catherine E. Keogh, Mary A. Keogh, and Thomas Ryan
...16 Sim. 1. Raikes v. WardENR 1 Hare, 445. Carr v. LivingENR 33 Beav. 474. longmore v. Elcum 2 Y. — Coll. Ch. C. 363. Badham v. MeeENR 1 Russ. & My. 631. Soames v. MartinENR 10 Sim. 288. Gardiner v. BarberUNK 18 Jur. 508. Raikes v. WardENR 1 Hare, 445. Hammond v. Neame 1 Swan, 35. Benson v. ......
-
Hole v Escott
...had been once vested in them by the operation of the bankrupt laws. On this point they referred to .and relied upon Badham v. Mee (1 Mylne & Keen, 32 ; and 7 Bing. 695), and Sir. E. Sugden's remarks upon that case (Sugd. on Powers, vol. i. p. 80, 6th ed.), together with the several Bankrupt......
-
Lord Leigh v Lord Ashburton
...& Aid. 561), WWmarsh v. Robertson (4 Beav. 26; 1 You. & Coll. C. C. 71B; and 1 Coll. 570), Smith v. Death (5 Madd. 371), Badham v. Met (1 Russ. & M. 631), Hale v. Escott (2 Keen, 444, and 4 Myl. & Cr. 187). [474} the master of the rolls [Lord Langdale]. This, no doubt, is a question of very......