Between J. E. Stamper, Widow, Plaintiff; and Samuel Barker, Clerk, and Robert Baas (Executors of Samuel Barker, the surviving Executor of Samuel Barker, the Testator in the Pleadings named), Elizabeth Sanneville (the Wife of Abraham Sanneville, to whom, jointly with the Plaintiff, Administration had been granted, with the Will annexed, of David Stamper, the late Husband of the Plaintiff), and David Brown and Eliza Brown, Legatees under the Will of the said David Stamper, deceased, Defendants

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date10 August 1820
Date10 August 1820
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 56 E.R. 855

COURT OF THE VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND

Between J. E. Stamper, Widow
Plaintiff
and Samuel Barker, Clerk, and Robert Baas (Executors of Samuel Barker, the surviving Executor of Samuel Barker, the Testator in the Pleadings named), Elizabeth Sanneville (the Wife of Abraham Sanneville, to whom, jointly with the Plaintiff, Administration had been granted, with the Will annexed, of David Stamper, the late Husband of the Plaintiff), and David Brown and Eliza Brown, Legatees under the Will of the said David Stamper, deceased
Defendants.

See Harle v. Jarman [1895], 2 Ch. 423.

8MADD. 197. STAMPER V. BARKER 855 [157] Between J. E. stamper, Widow, Plaintiff; and samuel barker, Clerk, and robert baas (Executors of Samuel Barker, the surviving Executor of Samuel Barker, the Testator in the Pleadings named), elizabeth sanneville (the Wife of Abraham Sanneville, to whom, jointly with the Plaintiff, Administration had been granted, with the Will annexed, of David Stamper, the late Husband of the Plaintiff), and david brown and eliza brown, Legatees under the Will of the said David Stamper, deceased, Defendants. July 24, August 10, 1820. [See Hark v. Jarman [1895], 2 Ch. 423.] Wife, an infant, being entitled to a present interest in certain personal property, and also to certain other contingent interests, a deed of separation was entered into between herself, her father, and her husband, by which she was to retain her present interest in the property ; and it was agreed that the husband should have a certain share in the contingent property, if it should fall into possession. The husband died before the wife. Held, that the deed was a nullity as to the wife, and that, the contingent interest falling into possession, she was entitled by survivorship. Samuel Barker by his will, 9tb October 1781, directed his executors, Samuel and John Barker, to [158] lay out one moiety of the produce of his personal estate upon Government securities, and the interest thereof to be paid to the testator's daughter, Jane Moxon, wife of Thomas Moxon, during her life, and after her decease the principal to be equally divided between the children of his said daughter, which might be living at her decease, and to the issue of such of them as might be then dead. The executors laid out the moiety in the purchase of 120 per annum long annuities, and the dividends were received by Jane Moxon, during her life. She died in November 1812, leaving two children, T. B. Moxon, and the Plaintiff, J. E. Stamper. J. Barker, one of the executors, died, having appointed Samuel Barker, co-executor of the first testator, to be his executor; and the said Samuel Barker afterwards died, and by his will appointed the Defendants, the Reverend Samuel Barker, clerk, and Robert Baas, (two of the Defendants) executors of his will, who proved the same. By the will of John Barker...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT