Christopher Alderson Lloyd, Kitty Alderson Lloyd, Margaret Lloyd, and Emma Lloyd, Plaintiffs, and John Branton, John Pearson, Christopher Alderson Harker, and W. P. Barnard and Sarah his Wife, Defendants
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1817 |
| Date | 01 January 1817 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 36 E.R. 42
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See In re Nourse, [1899] 1 Ch. 70.
christopher alderson li.oyd, kitty alderson lloyd, margaret lloyd, and emma lloyd, Plaintiffs, and john branton, john pearson, christopher alderson harker. and W. P. barnard and sarah his Wife, Defendants. Rolls. March f , .4 pril 2^ 1817. [See In re Nourse, [1899] 1 Oh. 70. J Testator gives 24,000, upon trust, as to 6000, to pay the interest to S. f . (his niece) during her life, and, after her decease, the principal among her children : if she should die without issue, over. He declares similar trusts as to three other sums of 0000 (making the remainder of the 24,000), for his three other nieces and their children. Proviso, that, in case any of his said nieces should marry without such consent as therein prescribed, each, &c., so marrying, should forfeit the interest of her 6000, and all other sums to which she may be entitled under his will ; and the respective sums of 6000, and all such other sums, &c., should fall into his residue. And he gives the residue in trust for his two nephews and their children-in case of the death of either without issue, his moiety to go over to and be divided among his said nieces. Afterwards, by codicil, he gives to each of his nieces 2000 in addition, " subject to the same powers, provisos, directions, " and limitations, as are contained in the will respecting the sums of (j()00." . B. who was of age at the date of the will, marries without the consent required. Held, a forfeiture ; extending not only to the future interest of her 6000, but to the capital, and also to the 2000 given by the codicil, and to a fund set apart to answer an annuity, to which S. B. would otherwise have been entitled on the death of the annuitant. Whether the forfeiture would also extend to her share of the residue, in the event of the contingency upon which it is given over to the testator's nieces, quaere. Christopher Alderson, by his will, dated the 24th of July 1810, gave and bequeathed to the Defendants, Bninton, Pearson, and Harker, 24,000, [109] upon trust, as to 6000 (part thereof) to invest the same in their names, or in the names or name of the survivors or survivor, his executors or administrators, upon government or real securities, and to pay the dividends or interest to his great niece the Defendant tiarah Barnard (then tiarah Alderson, spinster) by half yearly payments, during her life, and after her decease to transfer and pay the capital unto and amongst her children as therein mentioned ; and, in case she should die without issue, then upon trust for her brother the Defendant Harker. Similar trusts were declared as to three other sons of 6000 each (residue of the said sum of 24,000)for the benefit of the testator's three infant great nieces (the Plaintiffs Kitty Alderson Lloyd, Margaret Lloyd, and Emma Lloyd), and their children ; and the testator directed that his four great nieces should have and be entitled to 3MER. 110. LLOYD T. BRANTON 4J1 the dividends and interest of the said respective sums of 0000, and to all and every sum and sums of money which they should respectively have or become entitled to under his will, for their respective sole and separate use. The testator then declared it to he his will that his trustees, or the survivors, i'c., should pay and apply any part of the dividends or interest payable to such of his said great nieces as should at the time of his decease he under the age of twenty-one years, in or toward her or their respective maintenance, &c., or otherwise, until she or they should respectively attain the age of twenty-one years, or be married with suck consent us thereinafter mentioned, as his said trustees should in their discretion think proper. The testator also gave to his said trustees an annuity of 50 for the life of his niece Jane Harlcer (the Defendant Harah Barnard's mother), upon trust to pay the same to his said niece for her life ; and he directed that a sufficient part of his personal estate should be invested for securing the said annuity, and [110] that his trustees should stand possessed of the funds in which the same should be invested, from and after the decease of his said niece, upon trust for her daughter tiarah Barnard. The will contained also a specific bequest of books and other articles to Sarah Barnard ; and there then followed a proviso that, in case of the marriage of any of the testator's four great nieces with the consent of his said trustees, or of the trustees and executors for the time being of his will, in writing for that purpose given, but not otherwise, his said trustees or the survivors, &c., should pay to each of the said great nieces so marrying, or otherwise settle upon her, or her issue, in such manner as they in their discretion should think adviseable, the sum of 2000, to be raised and paid out of the 0000, to the dividends and interest whereof his said great niece so marrying was under his will entitled for her life as before mentioned ; and another proviso, that if any of his great nieces should marry without the consent of his said trustees or trustee for the time being, testified by writing under their or his hands or hand first given, then and in such case, his said great nieces, each and every of them, so marrying without such consent, should, from thenceforward, forfeit, and be no longer entitled to, the dividends or interest of the respective sums of 0000 payable to them respectively for life as before mentioned, or to any other sums which they might respectively become entitled to under his will, and should not have received ; and that the said interest and dividends, and the respective sums of 0000, or the securities for the same, and all such other sums to which they respectively might become entitled as aforesaid, should thereupon sink into, and constitute part of, the residue of bis Estate. And he gave and bequeathed the residue of his said Estate and Effects unto his said Trustees, upon trust to invest the same upon Governmont or real securities, and to pay to his [111] great Nephews) the Plaintiff Christopher Alder.ion Lloyd and the Defendant Harker), the dividends or interest of the same, in equal shares, for their respective lives ; and after the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
An v Barclays Private Bank & Trust (Cayman) Ltd
...194; 6 E.R. 1128, considered. (22) Leong v. Chye (Lim Beng), [1955] A.C. 648; [1955] All E.R. 903, applied. (23) Lloyd v. BrantonENR(1817), 3 Mer. 108; 17 R.R. 33; 36 E.R. 42, considered. (24) Londonderry”s Settlement, In re, [1965] Ch. 918; [1964] 3 All E.R. 855, considered. (25) Massy v. ......
-
Howard and Another v Bank of Ireland and Others
...(1) 54 T. L. R. 153. (2) [1936] 2 All E. R. 878. (3) [1933] 1 Ch. 657. (4) [1943] A. C. 320. (5) [1940] Ch. 385. (6) 11 Ch. D. 959. (7) 3 Mer. 108. (8) [1905] 1 Ch. 96. (1) 10 Ir. Eq. R. 295, (2) 2 P. Wms. 547. (3) 3 Mer. 108 at p. 116. (4) [1905] 1 Ch. 96. (1) [1907] 1 Ch. 180. (2) 5 Ves. ......
-
King v King
...& Myl. 304. (d) 3 Ir. Chan. Rep. 26 (e) 21 Beav. 552. (f) 2 Kee. 756. (a) 3 Ir. Chan. Rep. 26. (b) 3 Ir. Chan. Rep. 19. (c) 3 Atk. 368. (d) 3 Mer. 108. (e) 1 N. R. 496; S. C. 32. L. J. (Ch.) (f) 2 Ves. jun. 367. (g) 25 Beav. 469. (a) 2 Russ. & Myl. 304. (b) 2 Ves. jun. 367. (a) 14 Beav. 482......
-
Bellinger v. Nuytten Estate, [2003] B.C.T.C. 563 (SC)
...v. Evanturel (1874), L.R. 6 P.C. 1, refd to. [para. 8]. Wheeler v. Bingham (1746), 26 E.R. 1010, refd to. [para. 9]. Lloyd v. Branton (1817), 36 E.R. 42, refd to. [para. Leong v. Chye (Lim Beng), [1955] A.C. 648 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 10]. Haythornthwaite Estate, Re, [1930] 3 D.L.R. 235 (A......
-
Fragmented time and domiciliary care quality
...funding streams for independent service providers. This hassubstantial implications for social care employment relationships (Broadbent, 2014)36ER42,1 which, as framework agreements rarely address terms and conditions of employment(Burrowes, 2015), have limited protection from market pressu......