Blewitt v Roberts and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1841 |
| Date | 01 January 1841 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 41 E.R. 495
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 10 Sim. 491; 10 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 342; 5 Jur. 979. See Heron v. Stokes, 1842-45, 2 Dr. & War. 89; 12 Cl. & Fin. 184; Bent v. Cullen, 1871, L. R. 6 Ch. 237; Blight v. Hartnoll, 1881, 19 Ch. D. 297. Cf., In re Morgan [1893], 3 Ch. 222.
R. &PS.3M, BLEWITT I'. ROBEKTS 495 [274] blewitt . roberts and others. May 1, August 4, 1841. [S. C. 10 Sim. 431 ; 10 L. 3. Ch. (N. S.), 342 ; 5 Jur. 979. See #rom v. Stote, 1842-45, 2 Dr. & War. 89; 12 01. & Fin. 184; Bent v. Cullen, 1871, L. E. 6 Ch. 237 ; Blight v. Hartnoll, 1881, Iff Ch. D. 297. Cf., In re Morgan [1893], 3 Ch. 222.] A testator, bequeathed to his. wife .600 per annum for her life, to be paid quarterly, and after"ker death the said annuity to be equally divided between six persons, whom ha nained, or the survivors or survivor of them. He also gave to each of these six persons 100 per annum during their lives, to be paid quarterly, with power to leave their said respective annuities at their deaths to any persons they might marry, or any children they might leave : but in case of any of them dying without exercising such power, then to the survivors or survivor. Held, reversing-the decree below, that the gifts over of the annuities of 600 and 100 respectively were not gifts .of so much stock in the 3 per cents, as would produce those annuities, but gifts of annuities for the respective lives only of the persons, to whom they were limited, as tenants in common. The will of Edward Blewitt, dated the 12th of October 1830, was partly as follows : - " I give to my wife Raehel Blewitt all my plate, linen, and furniture ; and I appcant'my said wife and my son Edmund Blewitt and Wightwick Roberts executors and trustees of this my will. And I give to my said wife 600 per annum for her life ; but not to be liable to the controul of any future husband ; but to be paid quarterly, from time to time, to her, on her receipt only, and not to be subject to any debts or assignment ; and after her death the said annuity to lie equally divided between Ann Rogers Blewitt, Thomas Rogers Blewitt, Henry Blewitt, Georgiana Blewitt, Byron Blewitt, and Oscar Blewitt, or the survivors or survivor. I also give to each of them, the said Ann Rogers Blewitt, Thomas Rogers Blewitt, Henry Blewitt, Georgiana Blewitt, Byron Blewitt, and Oscar Blewitt, 100 per annum during their lives, to be paid quarterly, with power to leave their said respective annuities at their deaths to any persons they may marry, or any child or children they may leave; but in case of any of them dying without exercising such power, then to the survivors or survivor. I give also to each of them, the said Thomas Rogers Blewitt, Henry Blewitt, Byron Blewitt, and Oscar Blewitt, as they arrive at twenty-one years of age, or before, if my said trustees shall think fit, 400 to put them out in life. But if either of the said last-named legatees [275] die before twenty-one years of age, or before such money be paid to him, to the survivors or survivor. All the residue of my property I give to my son Edmund Blewitt, if he should survive me. But in case of his death, to 'my son Reginald James Blewitt; and in case of his death also before me, to my daughter Frances Mary Ann Blewitt. The testator died on the 8th March 1832, leaving his widow, Rachael, and the six other annuitants mentioned in his will, who were his illegitimate children by Rachael before their marriage, surviving him. Shortly after the testator's death, his son Edmund having died in his lifetime, this suit was instituted by Reginald James Blewitt, as residuary legatee, against the Defendant Roberts and the widow, who had proved the will, and the six illegitimate children, far the purpose of having the rights of all parties declared, and the trusts of the will administered under the direction of the Court. Pending the suit Henry...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robb and Reid v The Right Rev Bishop Dorrian
...Power Ir. R. 2 Eq. 204. Robinson v. RobinsonENR 1 Burr. 38. Davis v. KempENR Carth. 4, 5: Eq. Cas. Ab. 216, pl. 7. Blewitt v. RobertsENR Cr. & Ph. 274. Nicholas v. HawkesUNK 10 Ha. 342. Nelson v. SmallUNK 13 Ir. C. L. R. 558. Grieves v. Case 1 Ves. J. 519. Thornber v. WilsonENR 3 Drew. 245.......
-
Mansergh v Campbell
...would have taken only a life interest, as the bequest would have been very nearly similar to the first gift in Bhwitt \. Roberts (1 Cr. & Ph. 274; 10 Sim. 491), but there being no words of survivorship each child would have had his share only of the 300 annuity for his own life. If the limi......
-
Hedges v Blick
...referred to Innes v. Mitchell (9 Ves. 212), Brandon v. Brandon (2 Wils. C. C. 14), Robinsm, v. Hunt (4 Beav. 450), Blewitt v. Robert* (Cr. & Ph. 274), Yates v. Maddan (3 Mac. & G. 532), Wilson v. Maddison (2 Y. & C. C. C. .372) and Lett v. Randall (3 Sm. & Giff. 83). Mr. Collier and Mr. Sch......
-
The Estate of Thos. Forster, Owner; Francis W. Hopkins, Petitioner
...F. & J. 388; 2 Sm. & Gif. 83. Wilson v. MaddisonENR 2 Y. & C. C. C. 372. Sullivan v. Galbraith Ir. R. 4 Eq. 582. Blewitt v. RobertsENR 1 Cr. & Ph. 274. Nicholls v. HawkesENR 10 Hare. 342. Stokes v. HeronENR 12 Cl. & Fin. 161. Hedges v. HarpurENR 2 De G. & J. 129. Mansergh v. CampbellENR 3 D......