Cranley v Dixon
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 1857 |
| Date | 10 March 1857 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 53 E.R. 201
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 26 L. J. Ch. 529; 3 Jur. (N. S.), 531. Followed, on the Point of income or corpus, In re Whitehead [1894], 1 Ch. 678.
[512] ckanley v. dixon. March 9, 10, 1857. [S. C. 26 L. J. Ch. 529; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 531. Followed, on the point of income or cm-pus, In re JVhitehead [1894], 1 Ch. 678.] A testator bequeathed life annuities payable from his death, and he directed a fund to be set apart to secure them. He also gave one-half of the residue of his personal estate to his widow absolutely, and the other half to other parties for life, with remainders over. By a codicil he postponed the payment of the annuities until the death of the wife. Held, first, that she did not, by implication, take the intermediate dividends of the fund set apart to answer the annuities; and, secondly, that such dividends as between the tenants for life and those in remainder constituted income and not corpus. By his will, dated in 1847, the testator, after sundry devises and bequests, gave a number of life annuities, amounting in the whole to 570, to his servants, payable quarterly from his death; and he directed his executors, out of his personal estate, to place in the 3 per cents, sufficient to answer all the annuities, and upon the decease of each of the annuitants, so much of the principal of the funds as should not be required for the continuing annuities should sink into the residue of his personal estate. And he bequeathed the residue of his personal estate, as to two equal fourth parts thereof to his wife for her absolute use; and he bequeathed to trustees upon trust one other fourth part thereof for his sister Sarah for life, with remainder to her children; and he bequeathed the remaining one-fourth of his residuary estate to trustees upon trusts for his sister Alice for life, with remainder to her children. The testator appointed his wife and two others executors. In 1849 the testator made a codicil whereby, after reciting the bequest of annuities to his domestic servants, he directed that the payment of the annuities should be postponed until the decease of the survivor of himself and his wife; and he thereby revoked so much of his said will as was necessary to be revoked for the purpose of carrying those his intentions into execution. The testator died in 1855, his wife survived him, and was still living, [513J A question arose as to the rights of the parties to the income of the fund set apart to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holgate v Jennings
...Sim. 18); Stott v. Hollingworth (3 Madd. 161); Douglas v. Congreve (1 Keen, 410); Dimes v. Scott (4 Euss. 195); and see Oranley v. Dixon ('23 Beav. 512); Wilkinson v. Duncan (Ibid. 469). Mr. E. Palmer and Mr. Shebbeare, for the Plaintiff, and Mr. H. F. Shebbeare, for another Defendant, were......
-
James v Shannon
...Bl. 692. Bird v. Hunsdon 2 Swan. 342. HUmphreys v. HumphreysELR L. R. 4 Eq. 435. Stevens v. HaleENR 2 Dr. & Sm. 22. Crawley v. DixonENR 23 Beav. 512. Bird v. Hunsdon 2 Swan. 342. Bird v. Hunsdon 2 Swan. 342. Humphreys v. HumphreysELR L. R. 4 Eq. 475. Betty Smith's TrustsELR L. R. 1 Eq. 79. ......
-
Fullerton v Martin
...the residue as [35] income or as capital, òCrawley v. Crawley (7 Sim, 427), Morgan v. Morgcm (4 De G. & Sm. 164), and Cranley v. Dixon (23 Beav. 512) were cited. On the 2d and 3d March 1860 the case was reargued. Mr. Glasse, for Mr. Howman. The first question is, was a settlement made by th......