Carter v Bentall
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1840 |
| Date | 01 January 1840 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 48 E.R. 1295
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 9 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 303; 4 Jur. 691. See Bugden v. Willett, 1869, L. R. 7 Eq. 475. Discussed, In re Hopkins' Trusts, 1878, 9 Ch. D. 131. See In re Birks [1899] 1 Ch. 709, reversed on appeal [1900], 1 Ch. 417.
[551] carter v. bentall. May 4, 5, June 27, 1840. [S. C. 9 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 303 ò 4 Jur. 691. See Bugilen v. Willett, 1869, L. E. 7 Eq. 475. Discussed, In re Hopkiiis' Ti~usts, 1878, 9 Ch. D. 131. See In re Birks [1899], 1 Ch. 709, reversed on appeal [1900], 1 Ch. 417.] A testator gave the income of his personal, and the rents of his real estate, to his daughter for life, for her separate use, and after her decease and the decease of his wife, he gave the residue of his real and personal estate to trustees, in trust to sell and pay half the produce " to the issue" of his daughter, equally, to be paid at twenty-one; and if only one child, then to such one child; and he directed the trustees to apply the interest in the maintenance and education of such issue ; " and in default of such issue " he gave such moiety of the residue between his nephews and nieces living at the death of his daughter. And he gave and devised the other moiety of the residue of his estate at the decease of his wife and his daughter without issue, to the same trustees, to permit his godson to receive the income for life, and after his decease to certain charities. Held, that "issue" in the first 1296 CABTER V. BENTALL JBBAV.M2. clause was to be construed " children;" but in the second clause in its ordinary unrestricted sense; and that consequently the gift over of the first moiety, upon the death of the daughter without issue was good, but was too remote as to the second. The word " issue " in a will, held on the context to have two different meanings as to two moieties of a devised estate. This cause was instituted for the purpose of carrying into execution the trusts of the wills of Thomas Mendham and of his daughter Sybilla Carter; and the question arising upon the construction of the will of Thomas Mendham, was whether certain limitations therein contained were void for remoteness. At the date of his will the testator had a wife, Elizabeth, and a daughter Sybilla. By his will, dated the 23d of March 1810, the testator gave the dividends of his long annuities to his wife for life, and an annuity to his godson for life ; and he "gave and bequeathed to his daughter, Sybilla Mendham, all the interest, dividends, income, and produce of his whole personal estate undisposed of by his will, and the rents, [552] issues, and profits, of his real and leasehold estates whatsoever and wheresoever, and of what nature or kind soever, for and during the term of her natural life, for her sole and separate use and benefit," and after directing his India bonds and Exchequer bills to be sold and invested, and the interest to be paid to his daughter for life, and after her decease to go along with the residue; the testator, after the decease of his wife and daughter Sybilla, gave, devised, and bequeathed the residue of his real and personal estate to trustees, and their heirs, executors, administrators, £,nd assigns, upon trust to sell and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rhodes v Rhodes
...823); Wintertm v. Crawfunl (1 Russ. & M. 407); Head v. Randall (2 Y. & C. (C. C.) 231); Boas v. Ross (20 Beav. 645); Carter v. Bentall (-2 Beav. 551); Hedges v. Harpur (9 Beav. 479); Dalzell v. Wdch (2 Sim. 319). the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. I am of opinion that the word "iss......
-
Garratt v Cockerell
...in reply. In the course of the argument the Vice-Chaneellor referred to Wilkinson v. South (7 T. E. 555), and Garter v. JBentall (2 Beav. 551). The following eases were also cited and commented upon : Trotter v. Oswald (1 Cox, 317); Doe d. Smith v. Welter (1 B. & Aid. 713); Gawler v. Cadby ......
-
Phillips v James
...in the former part, but this is unsound, for the word may have different meanings in different parts of the same will; Carter v. Bentall (2 Beav. 551). Here the Court will construe it as meaning children, it being against the spirit of marriage articles to make children take concurrently wi......
-
Hedges v Harpur
...one clause, it did not follow that it must receive the same construction in a different clause in the same instrument; Garter v. Bentall (2 Beavan, 551); that the word issue must be construed in its ordinary sense, and thus give the daughters absolute interests, as in Gfibbs v. Tail (8 Simo......