Cockshott v Cockshott
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 January 1846 |
| Date | 20 January 1846 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 63 E.R. 802
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 15 L. J. Ch. 131; 10 Jur. 141. See Ralph v. Carrick, 1877-79, 5 Ch. D. 995; 11 Ch. D. 873.
[432] cockshott v. cockshott. Jan. 20, 1846. fS. C. 15 L. J. Ch. 131; 10 Jur. 141. See Ralph v. Carrick, 1877-79, 5 Ch. D. 995; 11 Ch. D. 873.] Estate for life by implication in real and personal estate. Henry Cockshott, by his will, dated the 7th October 1842, in which he described himself as a farmer, of Cringles, in the West Kiding of Yorkshire, gave and bequeathed to his four daughters, Mary, Ann, Grace and Hannah Cockshott, the sum of 1200, to be equally divided between them, share and share alike, after the death of his wife, Margaret Cockshott, or so long as she continued his widow; but, should 50 or 60, during his wife's widowhood or before her death, be of any service to any of his said daughters to promote their welfare in the world, he empowered bis executors thereinafter mentioned to pay the said sums to each of his said daughters according to their own discretion. Should any of his said daughters die without child or children, the share of money left to her to be equally divided among his surviving daughters. Should his daughter Ann die before she could possess the sum of money left to her in that his last will, he then willed that her child, Martha Cockshott, should have his daughter Ann's share of money. He likewise further willed that his estate at Adding-ham and his estate at Bradley be given to his sons, Thomas, John, Henry and Lister Cockshott, their heirs and assigns, as tenants in common, and not as joint-tenants, but not to be put in possession of the said estates so long as his wife, Margaret Cockshott, kept his widow. He likewise further willed that all his monies and securities for monies, together with all his household furniture, goods and chattels of every description, together with all the farming stock found upon the farm and premises that he then occupied at Cringles, should be equally divided between his four said sons, their heirs and assigns, share and share alike, at the death of his said wife Margaret; or, should she not remain his widow, then his four said sons should take possession of [433] the same. He likewise further willed that the tenant right of the farm which he then occupied at Cringles, with the approbation of the Earl of Thanet, be given to his two sons, John and Henry Cockshott, at the death of his said wife Margaret, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swan v Holmes
...C. 393); M'Dermott v. Wallace (5 Beav. 142); Townley v. Bolton (1 Myl. & K. 148); Allin v. Crawshay (9 Hare, 382); Cockshott v. Cockshott (2 Coll. 432); Roe d. Bendale v. Summerset (5 Burr. 2608). [474] Mr. Mackeson, for William Holmes, the only surviving cousin, who was also entitled, unde......
-
Hobson v Ferraby
...a Court, professing to protect the orphan and the helpless, will be guided. I agree that this V.-C. Yin.-26 802 COCKSHOTT V. COCK.SHOTT 2 COLL. 432. is not a Court of honour; but it is a Court of Equity; and equity and honour are sometimes, as here, the same. The costs of this portion of th......
-
Addison v Busk
...in trust at his (the testator's) wife's death, it was held that his wife took a life-estate by implication. In Cockshott v. Cocksfwtt (2 Collyer, 432), several gifts were made to certain persons, but the òdevisees were " not to be put in possession of the estates so long as his wife Margare......
-
Campbell's Trustees v Clarke, et Al
...to decide now what class of heirs or next of kin will then take the accumulation struck at by the statute.’ 1Cockshott v. CockshottENR, 2 Collyer, 432; Roe v. SummersetENR, 5 Burr. 2608; S. C., 2 Blackstone Rep. 692; Blackwell v. BullENR, 1 Keen, 176; Humphreys v. HumphreysELR, L. R. 4 Eq.,......