Between William Simson and Richard Parrott, Plaintiffs; and Jenkin Jones and John William Innes, Defendants
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1831 |
| Date | 01 January 1831 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 39 E.R. 433
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Cooper v. Cooper, 1888, 13 App. Cas., 109.
[365] Between william simson and richard parrott, Plaintiffs; and jen kin jones and john william innes, Defendants. Rolls. Feb. 15, March 23, 1831. [See Cooper v. Cooper, 1888, 13 App. Gas., 109.] On the marriage of a female infant who was a ward of Court, and entitled to a leasehold estate to her separate use, a settlement was made under the order of the Court, giving to the trustees a power of sale over the leasehold estate: A sale made by the trustees under the power, during the minority of the female infant, is not valid. Thomas Kelly, being possessed of certain leaseholds held for long terms of years, by his will, dated the 18th August 1818, after other devises and bequests, gave and devised unto his daughter Mary Hern, and the Plaintiffs, William Simson and Richard PaiTott, their heirs, executors, and administrators, all his freehold and copyhold estates not specifically bequeathed, and all other his estate and effects, upon trust, to pay unto his sister, Margaret Doran, for her life, an annuity of 30, and unto his said daughter, Mary Hern, an annuity of 200 for her life, for her separate use, which several annuities he charged upon his leasehold messuages not specifically bequeathed ; and as to all the residue of his said trust estate and effects, and not thereinbefore specifically bequeathed, charged with the said several annuities, upon trust for his the testator's grandchildren, Thomas Hern and Margaret Hern, their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, to be equally divided between them, share and share alike, as tenants in common, to be paid, assigned, and transferred unto his grandson, when he should attain the age of twenty-one years, and the share of his granddaughter to be paid, assigned, or transferred to her when she should attain the age of twenty-one years, or 434 SIMSOX V. JONES 2 RUSS. & M. 366. marriage, which should first happen; and the testator thereby willed and declared, that [366] the share of his granddaughter Margaret should be for her own sole and separate use and disposal, exclusive of any husband or husbands with whom she should intermarry, and wherewith he, they, or any of them should not intermeddle; neither should the same, or any part thereof, be subject or liable to his or their or any of their debts, control, management, or engagements, but the receipt or receipts of his said granddaughter alone, or of such person or persons as she should from time to time order, direct, or appoint to receive the same, should only be effectual and sufficient discharges for the same. In case either of his grandchildren died before his or her share became a vested interest, the share of him or her so dying was to go to the survivor : the share of his grandson was to become a vested interest on his attaining his age of twenty-one years, and that of his granddaughter on her attaining the age of twenty-one years, or marriage ; and in case both his grandchildren should depart this life without attaining vested interests, the testator gave the trust property over as. therein mentioned. He appointed his daughter Mary and the Plaintiffs, executrix and executors of that his will. Thomas Kelly died on the 13th August 1823, and the Plaintiffs alone proved his will. The daughter Mary did not prove the will, or act in the execution of the trusts of it; but she was appointed guardian of her children by an order of the Court of Chancery made upon petition. Some time afterwards Thomas Hern and Margaret Hern, by their mother, aa their next friend, instituted a suit in the Court of Chancery against the two trustees and executors, and Margaret Doran, for the administration of the estate of the testator,. and the [367] execution of the trusts of his will; and George Eshelby having made proposals of marriage to the granddaughter, who was then of the age of eighteen years, it was, by an order, dated the 22d of January 1829, referred to the Master to consider and certify whether George Eshelby was a proper person for the Plaintiff, Margaret Hern, to intermarry with : and if the said Master should be of opinion that he was a proper person, he was to lay proposals before the Master, and the Master was to inquire and certify whether the same were fit and proper to be carried into execution. The Master, by his report, dated the llth of February 1829, certified that George Eshelby was a proper person for the Plaintiff, Margaret Hern, to intermarry with, and approved of a proposal which had been laid before him for the settlement of her property. By another order, dated the 12th of February 1829, the Master's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pimm v Insall
...never carried into effect. It is too late to contend that such a contract is binding; Clough v. Clough (5 Ves. 710), Simson v. Jones (2 Russ. & M. 365). How, then, can such an agreement defeat the claims of creditors which existed at the time it was entered into 1 There is neither sale nor ......
-
Calvert v Godfrey
...an infant's inheritance is never bound by any discretionary act of the Court^ Taylor v. Philips (2 Ves. sen, 23). In Simson v. Jones (2 Russ. & M. 365), [103] it was. held that the settlement by the Court, of an infant's leasehold was not binding. Sir John Leach said, " This Court has no au......
-
Re The Estate of John Eakins Browne, Appellant; Theobald Billing, Respondent
...10 Hare, 126. Beere v. Head 3 J. & L. 340. Nairn v. Prowse 6 Ves. 751. Dilkes v. Broadmead 29 Law Jour., Chan. 310. Simpson v. JonesENR 2 Russ. & M. 365. Clarke v. WrightENR 6 H. & N. 849. Kekewicke v. ManningENR 1 De G., M. & G. 176. Pimm v. Insall 1 Hall. & Tw. 491. Spackman v. TimbrellEN......
-
Armit's Trusts and The 11 & 12 Vict. C. 68
...12 VICT. c. 68. Grange v. Tiving Bridg. by Bann. 107. In the Matter of DaltonENR 3 Sm. & Giff. 331; 6 D. M. & G. 201. Simson v. JonesENR 2 Russ. & M. 365. Stubbs v. SayerENR 2 Beav. 496. Gullin v. GullinENR 7 Sim. 256. King v. BellordENR 1 H. & M. 343. — Power — Execution of, by an Infant. ......