Clark v Bates
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 February 1848 |
| Date | 19 February 1848 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 64 E.R. 90
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 12 Jur. 597.
[203] claek v, bates. Feb. 19, 1848. [S. C. 12 Jur. 597.] Payment of a legacy on an erroneous construction of the will, not maid fide, not an admission of assets on the true construction. This was the suit of a legatee under the will of a testator named John Clark, who, 2DEG.&SM.2M. IN RE BAGSHA.WE 91 by his will dated the 25th of November 1835, devised all his freehold and copyhold estates to his son, John Clark, in fee; charged as thereinafter mentioned, and bequeathed his household furniture and plate, and all other his personal estate, to the same son, he paying thereout all the testator's debts, and subject as thereinafter mentioned. And the testator bequeathed to his daughter, Elizabeth Clark, 1000 ; to the Plaintiff, Ann Clark, who was another daughter, 1000; to be paid them at twenty-one by the son, John Clark. And the testator charged his real and personal estate devised to the son, John Clark, with payment of these legacies ; and if either daughter died under twenty-one without issue, her legacy was to go to the other daughter at twenty-one. The testator died in 1836, leaving all the three children [204] infants. Ann Clark, by the present bill, sought an account of what was due for principal and interest on her legacy; and that the Defendants, the executors, might admit assets ; or that the usual accounts might be taken. The executors, by their answer, admitted that they had proceeded upon the belief that no interest was payable on the legacies of 1000 before the legatees attained twenty-one; and that, acting on this belief, they had paid Ann Clark her legacy of 1000 without interest, on her attaining her age of twenty-one years, and had accounted with John Clark, the residuary legatee, on the footing of no interest being payable on either legacy of 1000 until the legatee was of age, and had reserved sufficient for payment of the other legacy on that principle. Mr. Swanston and Mr. Malins, for the Plaintiff, contended that this admission was a sufficient admission of assets to entitle the Plaintiff to a decree for her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Payne v Little
...v. Mounsey, Ibid. ò33, note; Lcaenby v. Rawson, 4 De G. M. & G. 556; tfez/ws v. Se.-oen, 1 Smale & Gif. 400; Clark v. 5afes, 2 De G. & Sm. 203. English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 783 ROLLS COURT Payne and Little [65] payne v. little. July 27, 28, 1855. Special examiners are entitled to a fe......
-
Hutton v Rossiter
...support of the appeal, referred to Postlethwaite v. Mounxey (6 Hare, 33, note), Barnard v. Pomfret (3 Myl. & Cr. 63), Clark v. Bates (2 De G. & Sm. 203). Mr. Malina, Mr. Piggott, and Mr. A. J. Lewis for the Respondents referred to Lazonby v. Sauismi (2 Sm. & Gif. 267), Whittle v. Henning (2......