Bell v Cade
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 November 1861 |
| Date | 16 November 1861 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 70 E.R. 996
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 31 L. J. Ch. 383; 5 L. T. 523; 10 W. R. 38. See Bright v. Tyndall, 1876, 4 Ch. D. 196.
Pleading. Declaratory Decree. Reversionary Interest. 13 & 14 Vict. c. 35.
[122] bell v. cade. Nov. 16, 1861. [S. C. 31 L. J. Ch. 383 ; 5 L. T. 523 ; 10 W. E. 38. See Bright v. Tyndall, 1876, 4 Ch. D. 196.] Pleading. Declaratory Decree. Reversionary Interest. 13 & 14 Viet. c. 35. Mode of framing a special case so as to enable the Court, in some cases, to make a declaration, in the lifetime of a tenant for life, with regard to the interest of a party claiming in remainder. Although, in the lifetime of a tenant for life, the Court has no jurisdiction, upon a special case, to declare whether an interest limited in remainder is vested or void for remoteness, yet it is competent to the Court to declare " Whether the person claiming in remainder takes such an interest in the property in question as to entitle him to file a bill to have it secured for his benefit." A special case. Joseph Lawless, by his will, in 1840, bequeathed the residue of his personal estate to trustees, upon trust, to set apart £2000 in their names, " to be held by them in trust for his daughter Harriet Bell and her child or children," the said sum to be invested in the names of his said trustees, and the interest to be paid to his said daughter during her life ; and after her death to pay and divide the said principal trust fund of £2000 equally between and amongst her children, if more than one, equally, on attaining the age of twenty-four years, and if but one, to pay the whole sum to such only child on attaining such age ; and in the meantime the interest or dividends to be applied for the use and benefit of such child or children, as the case might be. And, as to the residue of the said trust funds, after setting apart the said £2000, the testator gave the same upon trust for his son, William Lawless, since deceased, now represented by the Defendant, Eliza Cade. The testator's daughter, Harriet Bell (afterwards Kingcombe), had one child only, the Plaintiff, Harry Bell. She was now of the age of fifty-four years. The question in the special case was, " Whether the trusts declared of the legacy of £2000 by the will of Joseph Lawless are not valid and subsisting trusts ò and whether the Plaintiff did not, at his birth, take a vested interest in remainder-therein : or whether the said trusts are not void for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The 11 & 12 Vict. C. 48, and The Trusts of The Will of John Bourke, in Relation to A Legacy Thereby Bequeathed
...3 My. & K. 411. Isaacson v. Webster 16 Ch. Div. 47. Hanson v. Graham 6 Ves. 238. Leake v. RobinsonENR 2 Mer. 363. Bell v. CadeENR 2 J. & H. 122. Billing v. Sandom 1 Br. C.C. 393. Bull v. PritchardENR 1 Russ. 213. Vaudry v. GeddesENR 1 Russ. & M. 203. Wilson v. KnoxUNK 13 L. R. Ir. 349. Spen......
-
Murray v Moyers
...and MOYERS. Rolls. Lord Langdale v. Briggs 8 D., M. & G. 419. Re Charleville a Minor 13 Ir. Chan. Rep. 6. Bell v. CodeENR 2 J. & H. 122. Gosling v. Gosling 1 John. 265. Jackson v. TurnleyENR 1 Drewry, 817. 520 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1866. Insolvent Court to obtain a dissent from the assignee, or......