Crowder v Stone
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 January 1829 |
| Date | 27 January 1829 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 38 E.R. 558
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Garratt v. Cockerell, 1842, 1 Y. & C. C. C 508; Leeming v. Sherratt, 1842, 2 Hare, 24; Smith v. Palmer, 1848, 7 Hare, 229. Followed, Jarman v. Vye, 1866, L. R. 2 Eq. 787. Questioned, Marriott v. Abell, 1869, L. R. 7 Eq. 478. See In re Palmer's Settlement Trusts, 1875, L. R. 19 Eq. 325.
[217] orowder . stone. March 12, 1827 ; August 19, 1828 ; January 27, 1829. [See Garratt v. Cockerell, 1842, 1 Y. & G. C. C 508 ; Leeming v. Sherratt, 1842, 2 Hare, 24 ; Smith v. Palmer, 1848, 7 Hare, 229. Followed, Jarman v. Vye, 1866, L. R. 2 Eq. 787. Questioned, Marriott v. Abell, 1869, L. R. 7 Eq. 478. See In re Palmer's Settlement Trusts, 1875, L. R. 19 Eq. 325.] A testator gave stock to trustees, to be divided, after the death of two persons who had life-interests in it, among A., B., C., D., and E., in equal shares; and he directed, that, if any of them should die without issue, before their respective shares should become payable, the share of him, her, or them so dying without issue should go to, and be equally divided among, the survivor and survivors of them. A. died, leaving issue, who were living at the time fixed for the distribution of the fund : then B. died, leaving a son, who died without issue, before the period of distribution ; shortly afterwards, and also before the period of distribution, C. died without issue : Held, That B.'s personal representative was not entitled to any portion of the fund : That the one-third of B.'s share, which, on the failure of her issue, survived to C., did not, on C.'s death, survive to the other legatees, but was transmitted to her personal representative : That the words 3 BUSS. 218. CROWDER V. STONK 559 " survivor and survivors," were to be construed iu their natural sense, and not as equivalent to " other^aiid others," so that no part of the shares of B. and (1. went over to A.'s personal representative. John Lloyd by his will, dated the 27th of April 1787, after mentioning in a preceding clause a nephew John Lloyd, and four nieces, Mary Powell, Jane Greenwood, Ruth Matthews, and Catherine Mitchener, gave a sum of 1100 four per cent. Bank annuities, and 700 three per cent. Bank annuities, to his executors upon trust, to pay the dividends to his wife during her life, and after her decease, to his brother during his life. The subsequent disposition of these two sums of stock was contained in the following words :-" And from and after the decease of my said wife Catherine, and my said brother Edward Lloyd and the survivor of them, my will is, that the said sums of 1100 and 700 shall be sold by my said trustees or the survivor of them, or the executors or administrators of such survivor ; and the produce or money arising therefrom, shall be paid to and equally divided between my said nephew and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garratt v Cockerell
...mentioned, Exel v. Wallace (2 Ves. sen. 318); Bigge v. Bensley (1 Bro. C. C. 187); Doe v. Lyde (1 T. R. 593); those of Crmoder v. Stone (3 Russ. 217); Murray v. Adden-brooJce (4 Russ. 407); Lepine v. Ferard (2 Russ. & M. 378); Malcolm v. Taylor (Id. 416); Dunk v. Fenner (Id. 557); Ferard v.......
-
Ranelagh v Ranelagh
...issue, was to be referred to an indefinite failure of issue. The cases cited were:-IVilmotv. Jfrilmot(8 Ves., 10); Crawler v. Stone(3 Russ., 217);: Massey v. Hudson (2 Mer., 130); Gray v. Slumme (1 Eden, 153); Davidson v. Dallas (14 Ves., 576); Barlow v. Satter (17 Ves., 479); Doe dem. Watt......
-
Re Corbett's Trusts
...of the testator, who were residuary legatees under Sarah Dallett's will, supported the same view, and cited Orowder v. Stone (3 Russ. 217), Hulme v. Hulme (9 Sim. 644), Campbell v. Brownrigg (I Ph. 301), Ferguson v. Dunbar (3 B. C. C. 469, n.) and Davidson v. Dallas (14 Ves. 576); and disti......
-
Douglas v Andrews
...West (1 Bro. C. C. 575, and 1 P. Wms. 275, n.), Pain v. Benson (3 Atk. 78), Fandergucht v. Blake (2 Ves. jun. 534), Ormeder v. Stone (3 Russ. 217). Mr. R. Palmer and Mr. J. H. Law contended, that the accrued shares passed over. They argued that, in this case, there was a sufficient intentio......