Bradshaw v Bradshaw
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 April 1836 |
| Date | 22 April 1836 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 160 E.R. 316
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER IN EQUITY
S. C. 6 L. J. Ex. Eq. 1. Discussed, Doe d. Hiscocks v. Hiscocks, 1839, 5 M & W. 363. Applied, Bernascom v. Atkinson, 1853, 10 Hare, 350. Referred to, Gillett v. Gane, 1870, L. R. 10 Eq. 34, Charter v. Charter, 1874, L. R. H. L. 381. In re Garland; Garland v. Beverley, 1878, 9 Ch. D. 219. And see 4 Y. & C. Ex. 567.
[72] bradshaw v. bradshaw. April 22nd, 1836.-Testator devised an estate in Jamaica to trustees upon trust, so long as Robert B, the second son of his daughter E. B., should be under the age of twenty-one years, to pay and apply 1501. per annum out of the rents and profits for his maintenance and education, and subject thereto upon various other trusts, in favour of his daughter E. B, and his said grandson Robert B., and, subject to all those trusts, in trust for the said Robert B. for life, with remainder to his first and other sons in tail male, with remainder in moieties in favour of H. C. and R, C , the second and third sons of his daughter I. C., and their issue. The testator also devised his estate in England in trust for his said daughter E. B., for life, with remainder to his said grandson Robert B for life, with remainder to his first and other sons in tail male, with remainder to the third, fourth, fifth, and every other son of the said E. B., severally and successively in tail male, with remainder to the testator's righfc heirs. E. B. had no second son named Robert The name of her eldest son was Robert, and that of her second son Henry: Held, under the circumstances, that this was a mistake in the name and not in the description of the devisee, and consequently that Henry, and not Robert, was entitled to take under these devises, and parol evidence was admitted to explain the ambiguity. [S. Ç. 6 L. J. Ex. Eq. 1. Discussed, Doe d. Hiseocks v Hiscocks, 1839, 5 M & W. 363. Applied, Bernasconi v. Atkinson, 1853, 10 Hare, 350. Referred to, Gillett v. Gane, 1S70, L. R. 10 Eq. 34, Charter v. Charter, 1874, L. R. 7 H L. 381. In re Garland; Garland v Btveiley, 1878, 9 Ch. D. 219. And see 4 Y. & C. Ex. 567 ] (d) In Ch. July, 1834 -The bill in this case prayed that the defendant might be decBed to deliver up a certain bond to the plaintiff to be cancelled, and that satisfaction aright be decreed to be entered up on the record of the judgment An attachment and commission of rebellion having issued against the defendant, lor want of an answer, a motion was made on his behalf that he might be at liberty to deliver up the bond to the plaintiffs to be cancelled , and that thereupon, and upon the defendant's paying the costs of the plaintiffs, and of all other parties to the Cciuse, und upon his undertaking forthwith, at his own costs and charges, to enter up satisfaction upon the record of the judgment, the writ of attachment and commission of rebellion might be discharged, and all further proceedings in this cause might be stayed The motion was opposed on the ground that the defendant was in contempt, and therefore eouki not be heard until he had cleared such contempt by putting in his answer. But his Honour the Vice Chancellor, after argument, overruled the objection, and made an order in favour of the defendant. 2 Y It C El. 73. BRADSHAW V. BRADSHAW 317 John Blagrove, Esquire, by his will dated the 3rd February, 1824, gave and devised all kis estates in the island of Jamaica, with the slaves thereto belonging, unto trustees, their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, upon trust to manage tiiose estates for the term of three years from the day of his death, and out of the rents, issues, and profits thereof, to pay during the said term certain annuities to which his wife was entitled under her marriage settlement, and to stand possessed of the residue of the rents and profits accrued during the said term, upon the trusts thereinafter mentioned. And he did thereby further declare that from and after the expiration of the said term of three years, his sdid trustees, their heirs and assigns, should stand and be seised and possessed of his said plantations and estates in the island of Jamaica, in trust, in the first place, for better securing the annuities payable to his wife, and subject thereto upon the trusts following; that is to say, as to his two-third parts of the plantation and estate called Cardiff Hall, upon trust that they the said trustees should from time to time, so long as Robert Blagrove Bradshaw, the second son of his dear daughter Eliza, the wife of James Bradshaw, should be under the age of twenty-one years, by and out of the rents and profits of the said last-mentioned hereditaments, pay and apply the yearly sum of 1501. for and towards his maintenance and education, and from and after his said grandson, Robert Bradshaw, should attain his [73] said age of twenty-one years should, during the joint natural lives of his said daughter Eliza Bradshaw and his said grandson Robert Bradshaw, out of the said rents and profits, pay unto his said grandson or his assigns, the: yearly sum of 3001., for his and their own use and benefit, and pay the residue of the rents and profits to his daughter Eliza Bradshaw, for her separate use during her life; and the testator declared that, after his said daughter's decease, the trustees should stand seised and possessed of the last-mentioned hereditaments, upon trust out of the rents and profits to pay the annual sum of 1501. for the maintenance of his said grandson, Robert Blagrove Bradshaw, until he should attain his said age of twenty-one, and aJter that period the annual sum of 3001. until he should attain the age of twenty-five, the surplus rents to accumulate in the interim, and he directed that when and as soon as the said Robert Blagrove Bradshaw should attain the age of twenty-five, but not sooner, he should be let into the possession of the whole of the rents and profits of the last-mentioned premises ; and, subject to the trusts aforesaid, he declared that his trustees should stand possessed of the said last-mentioned premises, in trust for the said Robert Blagrove Bradshaw for life, with remainder to his first and other sons in tail male; with remainder, as to one undivided moiety, in trust for hit grandson, Henry Coore, second son of his daughter Isabella Coore, widow, for his life, with remainder to his first and other sons in tail male; with remainder to his grandson Richard Coore, third son of his daughter Isabella Coore, for life , with remainder to his first and other sons in tail male , with remainder to the right heirs of the testator. The other undivided moiety was limited in the same manner, except that Richard Coore took first under that series of limitations A power of jointuring was then given ta Robert Blagrove Bradshaw. The testator then declared that the trustees should, [74] after the expiration of the said term of three years, stand seised and possessed of his plantation called the Orange Yailey Estate, other part ol his Jamaica estates, upon certain trusts, for the beo^ifc of flia daughter Isabella Coore, and for the maintenance and education of his two grandsons, Henry Coore and Richard Coore, and, subject thereto, in trust for his said grandson, Heary Coore, for life; with remainder to his first and other sons in tail male; with remainder to his grandson, Richard Coore, for life ; with remainder to- his first and other sons in tail male; with remainder to his said grandson, Robert Blagrove Bradshaw, for life; with remainder to his first and other sons in tail male ; with *emmder to the testator's right heirs. The testator then declared that his trustees should, subject to the said term of three years, stand possessed of the estate called Upper and Lower Magotty, upon cortain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Gregory's Settlement and Will
...v. Marshall (2 Kay & J. 740); Bernasconi v. Atkinson (10 Hare, 345); Hodgsm v. Clarke (1 De G. F. & J. 394); Bradshaw v. Bradshaw (2 Y. & C. (Exch.) 72); [602] Jarman on Wills (vol. 1, pp. 407, 408 (3d edit.)); Doe d. Hiscocks v. Hiscocks (5 Mee. & W. 363); Newbolt v. Pryce (14 Sim. 354); G......
-
Hodgson v Clarke
...testator was, so far as the circumstances of the case admit; Doe d. Le Clwvalier v. Huthivaite (3 B. & A. 632); Bradshaw v. Bradshaw (2 Y. & C. Exch. 72); Lm-d Camoys v. Blundett (1 H. of L. Cas. 778). The evidence here shews that, to the knowledge of the testator, the eldest son was amply ......
-
Re The Matter of The Estate of Christopher Plunkett, Owner; John Dooner, Petitioner
...Stockdale v. Bushby 19 Ves. jun. 381. Bernasconi v. AtkinsonENR 10 Hare, 345. Smith v. Coney 6 Ves. jun. 41. Bradshaw v. BradshawENR 2 Y. & C., Exch., 72. Bennett v. MarshallENR 2 K. & J. 740. Camoys v. Blundell 1 H. of L. Cas. 786, 791. Feltham's TrustsENR 1 K. & j. 528. Baeumont v. FellEN......