Bateman v Hotchkin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 July 1847 |
| Date | 26 July 1847 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 646
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 16 L. J. Ch. 514; 11 Jur. 809. See Tewart v. Lawson, 1874, L. R. 18 Eq. 495.
428] bateman v. hotchkin. July 14, 26, 1847. [S. C. 16 L. J. Ch. 514 ; 11 Jur. 809. See Tea/art v. Lawson, 1874, L. R. 18 Eq. 495.] A testator directed all his debts, in the first place, to be paid out of hia personal estate, except his leaseholds, if sufficient, and, if not, he charged his real estate therewith. Held, that the specific legacies were liable to the payment of the debts in priority of the real estate. A testator devised his real estate in strict settlement, subject to a term of 2000 years, limited to trustees for raising 500 a year, and accumulating it as a sinking fund for payment of his mortgage debts, &c., to a considerable amount. Held, that the trust, though unlimited in its duration, waa valid. Thomas Hotchkin, by his will, dated in 1843, directed that all his just debts, funeral, and testamentary expences should, in the first place, be fully paid and discharged out of his personal estate, exclusive of leasehold tenements, if the same should be sufficient for that purpose ; and if not, then he thereby charged his real estate with such deficiency, and directed the same to be raised under the term of 2000 years thereinafter created for that purpose. He then gave and bequeathed to his son Thomas Henry Stafford Hotchkin all the furniture and other things in his will described, which, at the time of his decease, should be in or about his dwelling-houses. After further bequeathing as therein mentioned, he devised his manors, lands and real estates, including settled hereditaments, to the intent therein mentioned : - To the use of trustees, their executors, administrators and assigns, for the term of 2000 years, to be computed from the day of his decease, upon trust, by mortgage, sale or other disposition of the said hereditaments, or any competent part thereof, for all or any part of the [427] term, to raise such sum of money as should be sufficient to make up the deficiency, if any, of his personal estate, except leasehold tenements, for payment of his debts, other than debts on mortgage, and also, by like ways and means, to raise and pay the several sums therein mentioned. And upon further trusts, out of the rents and profits of the devised estates (after answering the purposes before provided), to pay and keep down all interest on mortgage debts ; and subject as aforesaid, that the trustees should yearly, until a sufficient fund should be raised fo pay and discharge the mortgage debts, by and out of the residue of the rents and profits of the devised estates, raise and set apart the clear yearly sum of 500 sterling, as a sinking fund for the discharge of the mortgages, and should, in the month of July in each year, lay out the said yearly sum or sinking fund of 10BEAV. 4J8. BATBMAN V. HOTCHKIN 647 500, in the purchase of stock, or at interest on Government or real securities, and, from time to time, alter or vary such securities when expedient. And he directed, that the dividends, interest, and annual produce of the stocks or funds to be, from time to time, produced by such investments, and the resulting income thereof, should be again, from time to time, laid out, so as to form a fund accumulating at compound interest. And as to the monies to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oddie v Brown
...(2 Swan. 432); Tregonwell v. Sydenham (3 Dow. 194); Browne v. Staughton (14 Sim. 369). Aa ta the Thellusson Act, Bateman v. Hotchkin (10 Beav. 426); Phipps v. Kelynge (2 Ves. & B. 57 n. (b.)); Speakman v. Speakman (8 Hare, 180); Longdon v. Simon (12 Ves. 295); Show v. Rhodes (1 Myl. & Or. 1......
-
Longfield v Bantry
...L. Cass. 728. Holmes v. Coghill 7 Ves. 498 Nugent v. Nugent I. R. S. Eq. 78. Briggs v. Oxford I De G. M. & G. 363. Bateman v. HotchkinENR 10 Beav. 426. Meller v. Stanley 2 De G. J. & Sm. 183 Hibbard v. LambeENR Amb. 309. Bull v. Vardy 1 Ves. Jun. 270, 271. Down v. WorrallENR 1 My. & K. 561.......
-
Townshend v Mostyn
...that the debts were payable out of the personal estate, but if that were insufficient, then out of the real estate ; Bateman v. HotMen (10 Beav. 426); Bickham v. Vruttwell (3 Myl. & Cr. 763); Goodwin v. Lee (1 Kay & J. 377); for as the testator had consolidated all the mortgages, and made h......
-
Cochrane v Cochrane
...C. COCHRANE and COCHRANE. Griffiths v. Vere 9 Ves. 127. Briggs v. The Earl of OxfordENR 1 De G. M. & G. 363. Bateman v. HotchkinENR 10 Beav. 426. Browne v. StoughtonENR 14 Sim. 369. Turuin v. NewcomeENR 3 K. & J. 16. Lord Southampton v. Marquis of Hertford 2 Ves. & B. 54; app. 62. Marshall ......