Chadwick & Ux' v Doleman Mil'
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 January 1705 |
| Date | 25 January 1705 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 23 E.R. 941
LORD KEEPER.
Principle discussed and applied in many cases, of which the following are the more important: Driver v. Frank, 1814; 3 M. & S. 25, 8 Taunt. 468. Wilbraham v. Scarisbrick, 1847, 1 H. L. C. 182 n. Macoubrey v. Jones, 1856, 2 K. & J. 692. Sandeman v. Mackenzie, 1861, 2 J. & H. 627. Collingwood v. Stanhope, 1869, L. R. 4 H. L. 52. Reid v. Hoare, 1884, 26 Ch. D. 371. Domvile v. Winnington, 1884, 26 Ch. D. 388.
[528] de term. S. hillarii, 1705, in curia cancellari^s. Case 476.-chadwick & Ux' versus doleman Mil'. [Principle discussed and applied in many cases, of which the following are the more important: Driver v. Frank, 1814; 3M.&S. 25,8Taunt. 468. Wilbrahamv.Scarisbrick, 1847, 1 H. L. C. 182 n. Macoubrey v. Jones, 1856, 2 K. & J. 692. Sandeman v. Mackenzie, 1861, 2 J. & H. 627. Collingwood v. Stanhope, 1869, L. R. 4 H. L. 52. Reid v. Hoare, 1884, 26 Ch. D. 371. Domvile v. Winnington, 1884, 26 Ch. D. 388.] Jan. 25, [1705]. Lord Keeper. [1] Eq. Ca. Ab. 343, pi. 8, S. C. A. by marriage-settlement is tenant for life, remainder to trustees, to raise 4000 for younger children's portions, as A. should appoint; remainder to his first, &c., sons ia tail. A. appoints the 4000 amongst his younger children, and particularly 2600 thereof to B. his second son. The eldest son dies six years afterwards, whereby B. became eldest son, and .intitled to the whole estate after his father's death ; and thereupon A. makes a new appointment of the 2600 to one of his daughters. Decreed the last appointment to take place ; the first being made to B. upon a tacit or implied condition, that he should not become the eldest son. Sir Thomas Doleman, the father, on his marriage, settled divers manors and lands to the use of himself for life ; and then, as to part thereof, to his wife for her jointure, remainder to trustees in trust, that if there should be both sons and daughters of the marriage, then the trustees were within six months after his decease to enter on all, not settled in jointure ; and by profits to raise any sum, not exceeding 2000, for payment of debts, as Sir Thomas should appoint (not for debts, but merely as Sir Thomas should appoint); and should also raise 4000 for younger children's portions (to be paid to them after the death of Sir Thomas. R. L.), in such proportions, as Sir Thomas should appoint; and in default of an appointment, to be equally divided amongst them (and paid to them at their respective ages of twenty-one years ; and if no younger children, then the whole 6000 to be disposed of by Sir Thomas, in case his eldest son should not marry and take a wife with his full consent. R. L.); remainder to first and other sons in tail. [529] It happened that there being several younger children grown up, and of full age, Sir Thomas Doleman, in 1686, by deed appoints the 4000 in several pro- 942 CHADWICK V. DOLEMAN 2 VEEN. 530. portions amongst his younger children, and particularly the sum of 2600 to the defendant Thomas, now Sir Thomas, his second son, who was at full age, and under a treaty of marriage at that time.(l) After this the eldest son, the defendant's brother, died without issue, and the defendant by the settlement, as first son, became iiititled...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lady Mary Topham v The Duke of Portland
...C. C. 462); Fry v. Capper (Kay, 163); Russell v. Jaekson (10 Hare, 204); Saauleman v. M'Kenzie (1 John. & Hem. 613); Chadieick v. Doleman (2 Vern. 528); Salman v. Gibbs (3 De G. & Sm. 343). Sir Hugh Cairns, Mr. Hardy and Mr. A. Bailey, for the Duke of Portland. Stnud v. Norman (Kay, 313); B......
-
Lyddon v Ellison
...child, the following cases are in point:-Stale v. Beale (1 P. Wins. 244); Fierson v. Garnet (ò2 Bro. C. C. 38); Chad-wick v. Doleman (2 Vern. 528); Matthews v. Paul (3 Swanst. 328 ; 2 Wils. C. C. 64); Lady Lincoln v. Pelham (10 Ves. 166); Teynham v. Webb (2 Ves. sen. 198); Scarisbrick v Lor......
-
Rooke v Plunkett
...children obtained a vested interest. But Mrs. Brown acquired a vested interest on her first marriage in 1857. In Chadwick v. Doleman (2 Vern. 528), where under a marriage settlement the father was tenant for life with remainder to trustees to raise £4000 for the portions of younger children......
-
Sandeman v Mackenzie
...Therefore the whole fund went to Mrs. Batten, whether the variation in the settlement was or was not valid. In Ghadwick v. Doleman (2 Vern. 528) it was held that a son who became the eldest before the period of distribution was excluded from the benefit of an appointment made in his favour ......