Clark v Browne
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 July 1854 |
| Date | 25 July 1854 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 65 E.R. 510
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 18 Jur. 903; 2 W. R. 665. Disapproved, Harrison v. Jackson, 1877, 7 Ch. D. 339; Manton v. Tabois, 1885, 30 Ch. D. 92. See In re Robe, 1889, 61 L. T. 499.
[524] clark v. browne. July 25,1854. [S. C. 18 Jur. 903; 2 W. R. 665. Disapproved, Harrison v. Jackson, 1877, 7 Ch. D. 339; Manton v. Tabois, 1885, 30 Ch. D. 92. See In re Robe, 1889, 61 L. T. 499.] A testator gave one-third part of the "amount of money" that might accrue from his claim on a testator's estate in course of administration in Chancery to his son, and the other two-third parts thereof to his wife and his son-in-law for their lives, with remainder to the son. The larger part of the amount was, after the date of the will, received by the testator under orders of the Court, and invested in his name in consols, some small part of which he sold, but afterwards repurchased in part.' The executrix, on the testator's death, treating this stock as the subject of the legacy, transferred the son's one-third to him, and she also transferred the two-third parts to trustees, who paid the income to her and the son-in-law. Held, on the principle of the civil law, that the testator having set apart a specific fund received by him, in order that it may be expressly reserved for the benefit of the legatee, it was not adeemed. Held, also, that the acts and course of dealing for a period of thirty-two years with the fund, as appropriated to answer the legacy, was a circumstance of great weight in rebutting the case of ademption, and the claim on the footing of a resulting trust. The Plaintiff in this cause, Mr. George Clark, claimed that a specific legacy given by the will of Mr. Thomas Stringer had been adeemed by the testator in his lifetime, except as to a small part thereof; and that, as the personal representative of the surviving executrix and residuary legatee of Mr. Stringer, he had become entitled thereto. Mr. Thomas Stringer, the testator, by his will, dated the 3d of March 1812, gave one-third part of the amount of whatever sum or sums of money might arise and be received from his claim and demand on the estate and effects of the late Sir Charles Booth, deceased, to his (the testator's) son, Dr. Stringer; and he gave one other third part of such amount to Peter Locke and Joshua Sutting Crossley in trust for his daughter, Mary Cuming for life, with remainder to her husband, John Brompton Cuming, for life, with remainder to their children, and in default of issue, with remainder to his son, Dr. Stringer, absolutely : arid he gave the remaining third part of such amount to the same trustees in trust for his wife, Rebecca Stringer, for her life, with remainder-as to one moiety, to his son, Dr. Stringer, absolutely-and as to the other moiety, in trust for his daughter, Mary Cuming, for life, with like remainders as were limited with respect to the one-third part originally given to her; and he gave all the residue and remainder of his personal estate to his wife, Eebecca Stringer, absolutely, and appointed her and Mary Cuming his executrixes. [5JJ5] The testator died on the 14th of November 1822, and his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Toole v Hamilton
...Division M. R. (1901. No. 346.) TOOLE and HAMILTON. Bridle's Case 4 C.P. D. 336. Clarke v. BrowneENR 2 Sm. & Giff. 524. Dowsett v. MeakinELR [1901] 1 Ch. 398. Fowler v. FowlerENR 33 Beav. 616. Fryer v. Morris 9 Ves. 360 Harrison v. JacksonELR 7 Ch. D. 339. Hoare. v. OsborneELR L. R. 1 Eq. 5......
-
Jones v Southall
...has been for convenience and security, and not for the purpose of ademption ; Clough v. Clough (3 Myl. & K. 296); Clark v. Browne (2 Smale & G. 524) ; Ashburner v. Macguire (2 Bro. C. C. 108); Dingwell v. Askew (1 Cox, 427); Fryer v. Morris (9 Ves. 360) ; Le G-rice v. Finch (3 Mer. 50). Thi......
-
Longfield v Bantry
...6 Ch. Div. 176. Boyes v. Cook14 Ch. Div. 53. Thomas v. JonesENRUNK 2 J. & H. 475; S. C. on App. 1 D. J. & S. 63. Clark v. BrowneENR 2 Sm. & G. 524, 528. Williamson v. Advocate-GeneralENR 10 Cl. & Fin. 1, 17. Darley v. MartinENR 13 C. B. 683. Turvin v. NewcomeENR 3 K. & J. 16. Browne v. Stou......