Cowley v Cowley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1838 |
| Date | 01 January 1838 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 59 E.R. 372
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Practice. Plaintiff. Dismissal.
[289] boys . morgan. June 11, 13, 19, 1838. [Affirmed, 3 My. & Cr. 661; 40 E. R. 1081.] Construction. Witt. Residuary Gift. A testator concluded his will as follows :-" I guess there will be found sufficient in my banker's hands to discharge all my debts, which I desire Mrs. E. M. to do, and keep the residue for her own use." Held (the whole of the will being taken together), that E. M. was entitled not only to the residue of the money in the banker's hands, but to the residue of the testator's general personal estate. The Plaintiff was one of the next of kin of John Boys, who died in August 1835. The Defendants were the other next of kin, and Eliza Morgan, to whom probate of the deceased's will had been granted. The bill alleged that, in 1825, Eliza Morgan went to reside with John Boys, and continued to live under his protection until his death ; that, having acquired great influence over him, she, in the years 1831 and 1834, prevailed upon him to transfer into her name four sums of stock, namely, two of 6000 each, one of 6317, and another of 5200; that she alleged that John Boys had left a will, which was in the following words:- "London, No. 11 Gower Street, North, 28th June 1835.-To my friends and relations who may be curious [290] to inquire, be it known that, a few years back, of my own free will, I gave to Eliza Morgan, commonly called Eliza Castillo, all my furniture, table and bed linen and apparel, plate, watches and trinkets of any kind then in my possession, a pianoforte, all my library, manuscripts, papers, &c., whatever have been added and may hereafter be added previous to my decease, without any exception whatever, to her sole use and disposal, under promise from her that she will take care that I shall never be in want of any articles as long as I live. Having attained to the 82d year of my existence, and finding the infirmities of age increasing, I choose to give her this voucher of the truth, that none may question or trouble her to make declaration of it. She knows that, 30 years ago, I agreed with Dr. Hector Campbell that he should have my carcase for chemical and anatomical experiments to be by him performed upon it, if he could prevail on her to give it to him ; doubting her compliance, I will trouble my head no more about it. The world may think this to be from a spirit of singularity or whim in me. Be that as it may, I have always had a mortal aversion to funeral pomp and expense; and therefore trust she will avoid it; and had rather be given away, with the sum a funeral would cost, for the purpose of dissection and chemical experiments. I guess there will be found sufficient 370 BOYS V. MORGAN 9 SIM. 291. in my banker's hands to defray and discharge my debts, which I hereby desire Mrs. Eliza Morgan to do, and keep the residue for her own use and pleasure. "JOHN boys." The bill charged that the before-mentioned transfers were made without consideration, and that Eliza Morgan held the stock as a trustee for John Boys; and that, at the date of hia will, he had money at his bankers [291] more than sufficient to pay all the debts that he then owed. The bill prayed that it might be declared that the general residue of the deceased's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fowler v Reynal
...has precluded herself from complaining, the bill must fail, one of the Plaintiffs having no title to be relieved : Cowley v. Gowley (9 Sim. 299), Makepeace v. Haythorne (4 Euss. 244). Moreover, she was a party to the memorandum indorsed upon the settlement, which in terms not only authorise......
-
Roberts v Roberts
...J. & W. 439), Anderson v. Wallis (4 Y. & 0. Exch. 336; affirmed on appeal, 1 Ph. 202), Westhead v. Keene (1 Beav. 287), Cowley v. Cowley (9 Sim. 299). Mr. Wigram and Mr. Calvert appeared in support of the bill, but they were not called on. the vice-chancellor [Sir J. L. Knight Bruce]. This ......
-
Richardson v Nixon
...316. Stafford v. Buckley 2 Ves. 171. Taylor v. MartindaleENR 12 Sim. 158. Denton v. Davy 1 Moore, Pri. Col. Cases, 15. Cowley v. CowleyENR 9 Sim. 299. Hudson v, MaddisonENR 12 Sim. 416. Bill v. Cureton 2 M. & K. 503; see 512. Winslow v. Tighe 2 Bal. & B. 195. Stubbs v. RothUNK 2 B. & B. 548......
-
McLeod v Lyttleton
...here he is. The Court will not at the hearing give leave to amend to cure mis-joinder, but will dismiss the bill at once; Cowley v. Cowley (9 Sim. 299; but see Davis v. Prout, 7 Beav. 288). Stuart v. Lloyd (3 M. & G. 181) was also cited. Mr. Karslake, in reply. The argument on the other sid......