Cowling v Cowling
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 March 1859 |
| Date | 14 March 1859 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 53 E.R. 971
ROLLS COURT
[449] cowungz;. cowling. March 12, 14, 1859. Stock in the funds, in which the testator has a reversionary interest, will not pass by a bequest of " my goods and furniture, my plate and linen, all money and notes that may be due to me at my decease." The testator, Mr. Cowling, at the date of his will and at his death was entitled to a reversionary interest in one-third of two sums of 8380 consols and 2798 Reduced, expectant upon the death of Andre Elisee Coutau. These sums were standing in Court to the credit of a cause of Norris v. Harrison. The testator made his will, dated 1835, which was in these words :- " I bequeath unto my beloved wife, Sarah Cowling, my goods and furniture, my 972 COWLING V. COWLING 28 BEAV. 450. plate and linen, all moneys and notes that may be due to me at my decease. This is my will and testament. Given under my hand at Greenwich this 14th day of March 1835." The testator died in the same year. Andre Elisee Coutau died in 1858, and the rever-[450]-sionary interest then fell into possession. It was wholly claimed by Sarah Cowling, under the will; but the next of kin of the testator insisted that it did not pass by the terms of the will, and that, as to this portion of the testator's property, there was an intestacy. Mr. R. Palmer and Mr. Berkeley, for the Plaintiff, one of the next of kin. If the stock passes, it must be under the word " goods " or " moneys." The effect of these words, in this will, depend on the context. If stock would pass by the word "money" or " goods," still, here there is the addition of " and notes," shewing that the testator did not intend to include everything by the words "the moneys." Again, the moneys are also limited to those "due to me at my decease." Secondly. The words are limited to things ejusdem generis. Mr. Cracknall, in the same interest. Mr. Cotton, for the widow, argued that the words were sufficient to carry the stock, and that the authorities warranted that construction, which, it was apparent, was the real intention of the testator. Mr. R. Palmer, in reply. The following cases were cited :-Gomten v. Dottenll (1 Myl. & K. 56); Kendall v. Kendall (4 Euss. 369); Hotham v. Mutton (15 Ves. 319); lowk v. Thomas (Kay, 369; 5 Da G. M. & G. 315); Waite v. Combes (5 De G. & S. 676); Stocky v. Bam (1 Johnson, 54); Ac-won v. Mimpxon (Ibid. 43); Roper on Legacies (vol. 1, p. 261 (4th edit.)). [451] Mardi 14. the master of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montagu v The Earl of Sanwich
...testatrix's property generally. They cited Lowe v. Thomas (5 De G. M. & G. 315); Chapman v. Reynolds (28 Beav. 221); Cowling v. Cowling (26 Beav. 449); Gosden v. Dotterill (1 Myl. & K. 56). Mr. Southgate and Mr. Earle, for legatees. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romillyl. The rule of co......
-
Gover v Davis
...Cook v. Oakley (1 P. Wms. 302) ; Timewell v. Perkins (2 Atk. 102); Lowe v. Thomas (Kay, 369; 5 De G. M. & G. 315); Cowling v. Cowling (26 Beav. 449); Barton v. Dunbar (29 L. J. (Chanc.) 572; 30 L. J. (Chanc.) 8). the master of the bolls [Sir John Romilly]. I think that this is an absolute g......
-
Chapman v Reynolds
...the funds;" for, otherwise, the will would be inoperative as regarded the distinct bequest to her brother and sister. Cowling v. Cowling (26 Beav. 449); Gosden v. Dotterill (1 Myl. & K. 56); Lowe v. Thomas (5 De G. M. & G. 315); Roper on Legacies (vol. 1, p. 282 (4th ed.)), were cited. the ......
-
Boardman v Stanley
...39. Wrench v. JuttingENR 3 Beav. 521. Montagu v. The Earl of SandwichENR 33 Beav. 324. Larner v. Larner 3 Dr. 704. Cowling v. CowlingENR 26 Beav. 449. In the Goods of o'LoughlinELR L. R. 2 P. & D. 102. Dunally v. Dunally 6 Ir. Ch. R. 540. Stooke v. StookeENR 35 Beav. 396. Thomas v. JonesUNK......