Beere v Hoffmister
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 December 1856 |
| Date | 06 December 1856 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 53 E.R. 40
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 26 L. J. Ch. 177; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 78. See Roach v. Trood, 1876, 3 Ch. D. 440; Henty v. Wrey, 1882, 21 Ch. D. 354.
[101] beere v. hoffmister. Dec. 5, 6, 1856. [S. C. 26 L. J. Ch. 177 ; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 78. See Roach v. Trood, 1876, 3 Ch. D. 440; Henty v. Wrey, 1882, 21 Ch. D. 354.] A. and hi^ wife had a power of appointing a fund to her children which, in default, was settled on the children who attained twenty-one, and in default thereof on the next of kin of the wife. There were powers of maintenance and advancement. There being but one child, of the age of three, of robust health, and the wife being seriously ill, A. and his wife appointed the whole fund to the child, reserving a joint power of revocation. The child died three years after, an infant, and her father became entitled to her property. The appointment was held valid. The testator, by his will, dated in 1839, gave one-fourth of his residuary estate in trust for his daughter Mrs. Beere for life, with remainder to Mr. Beere for life, " and after the decease of the survivor of them, upon trust for all and every, or such one or more of the children of his said daughter Mrs. Beere, in such shares, proportions, at such ages or times, and in such mariner, and subject to such restrictions and limitations, as Mr. Beere and Mrs. Beere, by any deed or deeds, with or without power of revocation, should jointly direct or appoint; and in default of such joint direction or appointment, then as the survivor of them should by deed or will direct or appoint; and in default thereof, and so far as any such, if incomplete, should not extend, in trust for all and every of the children of Mrs. Beere who, being a son or sons, should attain the age of twenty-one years, or being a daughter or daughters, should attain that age or marry, to be divided " between them equally. And if there should be no such child who, being a son, should live to attain the said age of twenty-one years, or being a daughter, should attain that age or mairy, then " in trust for the person or persons, who would have been entitled to the clear residue of the personal estate of Mrs. Beere, as her next of kin under and according to the Statutes for Distribution of Intestates' Estates, in case she had died a widow and intestate." The will contained a power of maintenance, extending to the whole of the income, and a power of advancement limited to one-half of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lady Mary Topham v The Duke of Portland
...Sm. & Gif. 362); Boutkdge, v. Donil (2 Ves. jun. 357); Sadkr v. Pratt (5 Sim. 632); Feamn v. Desbrisay (14 Beav. 635); Beere v. Ho/mister (23 Beav. 101); Bristow v. Wank (2 Ves. jun. 350); Mmldison v. Andrew (1 Ves. sen. 57); Robinson v. Ha/rdcastk (2 Term. Rep. 241); Eichardson v. Simpson ......
-
Remnant v Hood
...to an infant child was made lionAJide : Butcher v. Jackson (14 Sim. 444); Fe.aron v. ll&lnixay (14 Ueav. 035); Matte v. Hoffniister (23 Beav. 101). The cases cited by Mr. Turner are cases where no particular time of payment was named ; the gift was vested in possession, and there was nothin......
-
The Right Hon. Charles William Francis Earl of Charleville, and Others, Minors
...1 Br. C. C. 395. Butcher v. JacksonENR 14 Sim. 444. Fearon v. DesbrisayENR 14 Beav. 640. Beere v. HoffminsterENR 3 Jur., N. S., 78; S. C., 23 Beav. 101. Lloyd v. Massy 10 Ir. Chan. Rep. 240. Bromley v. WrightENR 7 Hare, 334. Bain v. LescherENR 11 Sim. 397. In re Hull's EstateENR 21 Beav. 31......
-
Wearing v Wearing
...for the Plaintiffs, the infants. Mr. Greene, for the trustee and executor. Mr. J. H. Palmer, for the widow. 40 BEERE V. HOFFMISTER 23 BEAV. 101. The fallowing cases were referred to :-Howe v. Lord Dartmouth (7 Vesey, 137) ; Goodenough v. Tremamondo (2 Beavan, 512); Morgan v. Morgan (14 Beav......
-
When Is A Fraud On A Power Actually A Fraud?
...benefitting himself; as he would inherit when the child died, was a fraud but contrast with the case a year later of Beere v Hoffmister (1856) 23 Beav 101 that established the donee can exercise its power to benefit a child even though the donee is the child's next of kin and will take such......