Brown v Brown
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 April 1856 |
| Date | 14 April 1856 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 69 E.R. 849
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 25 L. J. Ch. 702; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 781 ; W. R. 473. Followed, Stringer v. Harper, 1859, 5 Jur. (N. S.) 401; 26 Beav. 585. See In re Middleton, 1882, 19 Ch. D. 554.
Will. Construction. Remoteness. Freeman of London. Custom. Costs.
[426] pickfokd v. brown. brown v. brown. April 12, 14, 1856. [S. C. 25 L. J. Ch. 702 ; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 781; 4 W. E. 473. Followed, Stringer v. Harper, 1859, 5 Jur. (N. S.) 401; 26 Beav. 585. See In re Middleton, 1882, 19 Ch. D. 554.] Will. Construction. Remoteness. Freeman of London. Custom. Costs. A gift by will of real and personal estate to trustees, upon trust to pay half the income to E. for life, and after her death to her child or children equally; the shares of sons to be vested in them on attaining twenty-five, and of daughters on attaining that age or day of marriage, which should first happen, and in the meantime to be applied for their maintenance, with survivorship in case of the death of any child before twenty-five or marriage respectively, with a similar gift to S. and her children of the other moiety, and a ,gift over in case of the death of either E. or S. without leaving issue, or leaving such and they should all die under twenty-five. Held, that the limitations to the children of E. and S. were void for remoteness. Held, also, that the direction for maintenance was altogether void. The testator was a freeman of the City of London. Held, that the property, the gift of which had failed, was not subject to the custom of London, but must be divided according to the Statute of Distributions. Two suits having been instituted to obtain the decision of the Court upon the construction of the will-one as to the testator's real, and the other as to his personal, estate: Held, that the costs of both must be borne by the personal estate in the first instance. Joseph Brown, a freeman of the City of London, by his will, dated in 1844, after certain specific gifts in favour of his wife and son Walter, devised and bequeathed all his residuary real and personal estate to his wife and two other persons as trustees, upon trust to pay certain legacies to his daughters Elizabeth and Catherine, and to pay half the income of his residuary real and personal estate to his daughter Elizabeth for life, for her separate use. And the will continued :- " And from and after her decease, upon trust, as to the said moiety of the said rents, interest, dividends and annual produce, to stand and be possessed thereof for all and every the children and child of her the said Elizabeth Brown, in equal shares and proportions, if more than one; and if but one, then for such only child, the share or interest of every son to be vested in him on his attaining the age of twenty-five years, and the share or interest of every daughter to be vested in her at that age or on the day of her marriage, whichever event should first happen, the said shares or share of such children or child in the meantime to be either laid out and applied by my said trustees for their, his, or her maintenance, education and advancement in life, or, at the discretion of my said trustees, be allowed to accumulate for [427] their, his or her benefit; and if any of such children being a son or sons shall die under the said age of twenty-five years, or being a daughter or daughters shall die under that age unmarried, then the part or share of every of them so dying shall go to the survivors or survivor of them, and their, his or her executors, administrators or assigns, and shall be vested in them, him or her, at the said age of twenty-five years 850 PICKFORD V. BEOWN 2K.&J.428. or day of marriage, in the same manner in all respects as their, his or her original shares or share." And he gave the other moiety to his daughter Sophia for life, and then to her children in the same manner. And in case of the decease of either of his said daughters in the lifetime of the other without leaving issue, or leaving such, and they should all die under the age of twenty-five years, then the testator directed that the share of her so dying should be divided in equal moieties, and one of such moieties should go and belong to his surviving daughter for her life, and after her death to her issue, to be paid arid payable to them in the same manner and under the same limitations in all respects as her original share;' and the other moiety to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stringer v Harper
...the first fund to be applied to that purpose; Browne v. G-roombiidge (4 Madd. 495); Eipley v. Moys&y (1 Keen, 578); Pickford v. Brown (2 Kay & J. 426). Mr. Bovill, for a mortgagee. Mr. Marten, in reply. [587] the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. I have no doubt that testamentary expe......
-
Sanders v Miller
...to the benefit of the heir. They cited Eyre v. Marsden (4 Myl. & Craig, 245; and see Ripley v. Moysey, 1 Keen, 578; and Pickfwd v. Brmvn, 2 Kay & J. 426; Wilson v. Squire, 13 Sim. 212). Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Hardy, for the next of kin. Mr. E. Palmer and Mr. E. Moore, for the Plaintiff. Mr. Foll......
-
Chappell v Haynes
...whole ousts the custom. In Wheeler v. Sheer nothing was done to oust the custom. Fitzgerald v. Field (1 Euss. 416) and Pickford v. Brown (2 K. & J. 426) shew that it is not even necessary to dispose of any part of the beneficial interest, the mere appointment of an executor, who takes nothi......
-
Newton v Newton
...169. Johnson v. ToddENR 8 Beav. 489. Prinsep v. Dyce SombreENR 10 Moo. P. C. 232. Ripley v. MoyseyENR 1 Keen. 578. Pickford v. BrownENR 2 K. & J. 426. Stringer v. HarperENR 26 Beav. 587. CHANCERY REPORTS. 245 It is not necessary for me to go through the facts which have been 1861. . App so ......