Davis v Huguenin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 May 1863 |
| Date | 02 May 1863 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 71 E.R. 320
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
S. C. 32 L. J. Ch. 417; 2 N. R. 101; 8 L. T. 443; 11 W. R. 1040. See Palmer v. Locke, 1880, 15 Ch. D. 302; Henty v. Wrey, 1882, 19 Ch. D. 503; 21 Ch. D. 357.
Power. Covenant. Release. Younger Sons. Portions.
320 DA VIES V. HUGUENIN 1H.SM.730. [730] davies v. huguenin. May 1, 2, 1863. [S, C. 32 L. J. Ch. 417 ; 2 N. E. 101 ; 8 L. T. 443 ; 11 W. R. 1040. See Palmer v. Locke, 1880, 15 Ch. D. 302 ; Henty v. Wrey, 1882, 19 Ch. D. 503 ; 21 Ch. D. 357.] Power. Covenant. Release. Younger Sons. Pwtions. Covenant by a father in his daughter's marriage settlement not to exercise a power so as to diminish her portion under the father's settlement : Held, a release pro ttmto of the power. A gross sum was directed to be raised after the decease of the settlor and his wife (tenants for life) for portions of children other than their eldest or only son, equally to be divided : Held, that the personal representatives of the eldest son, who attained twenty-one and died in his father's lifetime, were entitled to one share. Held, also, that a daughter who attained twenty-one and died unmarried in her father's lifetime was entitled to a share. Held, also, that the second son, who, during the father's life and after attaining his majority, became the eldest son and succeeded to the settled estate, and the personal representatives of a child who died in infancy, were not entitled. By an indenture, dated the 9th of November 1819, between John Davies and Mary, his wife, of the first part, James Meddowcroft and Thomas Hughes (both since deceased) of the second part, and George Kipley (since deceased) of the third part. After reciting that the said John Davies at or soon after his intermarriage with the said Mary, his wife, had received from her uncle, the said James Meddowcroft, the sum of 500, and that he had lately received from the said James Meddowcroft the further sum of 500, with interest thereon from the time of such marriage, making together the sum of 1218, as a marriage portion given by her said uncle ; arid that, in consideration thereof, the said John Davies had agreed to settle and convey the lands and premises first thereinafter described to the uses and in manner thereinafter mentioned. And reciting that the said Mary, the wife of the said John Davies, under the will of her late father, would be entitled to a further legacy of 600 after the death of her mother, and that in consideration of the premises, and for making a further provision of maintenance for his said wife, and for the male issue of the marriage, and for the raising of portions and making such provision for the daughter or daughters, younger son or younger sons, of the said John Davies on the body of the said Mary, his wife, begotten or to be begotten as were thereinafter in that behalf expressed, and for the settling of the estates of inheritance thereinafter mentioned, he, the said John Davies, had consented and agreed to settle and convey as well the messuages, lands, tenements, hereditaments and premises first thereinafter described, as also certain other lands also therein described, upon the trusts, and to and for the purposes thereinafter declared concerning the same. The said John Davies released [731] and confirmed the lands and premises therein mentioned, to hold to Meddow- croft and Hughes and their heirs, to such uses, upon such trusts, and to and for such intents and purposes, and with and under such provisoes, powers, limitations, restric- tions and agreements as were thereinafter Limited and declared of and concerning the same, subject to certain specified incumbrances affecting part of the aforesaid lands ; that is to say, to the use of the said John Davies for life without impeachment of waste, with remainder to the use of the aaid Mary, his wife, for her life, without impeachment of waste, with remainder to the use arid behoof of such of the children of the said John Davies on the body of the said Mary, his wife, begotten or to be begotten, and in such parts, shares and proportions, and under and subject to such charges, directions, limitations and appointments as the said John Davies, by his last will and testament, should charge, direct, limit or appoint, give or devise the same or any part or parts thereof, and in default thereof to the use of such of the children of the said John Davies by the said Mary, his wife, and in such parts, shares and 1H. ftM. 732. DAVIES V. HUGUENIN' 321 proportions as the said Mary, the wife of the said John Davies, whether covert or sole, should by will or codicil appoint; and for want of such appointment, to the use of the said George Ripley, his executors, administrators and assigns, for the term of 500 years from thence next ensuing, upon the trusts thereinafter mentioned ; and, subject thereto, to the use of the said James Meddowcroft and Thomas Hughes, and their heirs, upon the trusts and to and for the several ends, interests and purposes after mentioned, that is to say : to the use and behoof of the first and other sons of the said John Davies on the body of the said Mary, his wife, begotten or to be begotten, and in default of issue male to the daughters, equally to be divided between them as tenants in common in tail general, with cross-limitations in tail general, with an ultimate limitation to the use and behoof of the right heirs of the said Mary, the wife of the said John Davies, [732] for ever. And the trusts of the said term of 500 years were declared to be, as soon as conveniently might be after the decease of the said John Davies and Mary, his wife, arid the survivor of them, in case of no such appointment as aforesaid, and in case the said John Davies should depart this life leaving issue by the said Mary, his wife, one son and also two or more children, either born in his lifetime or after his decease, then in trust to raise the sum of 6000 for the portion or portions of any child or children of the said John Davies on the body of the said Mary, his wife, begotten or to be begotten (other than their eldest or only son), equally to be divided betwixt and amongst them if more than one, and with and subject to such further declarations, limitations, restrictions and agreements as were thereinafter expressed concerning the aforesaid portion or portions, and the maintenance of such child or children. And the deed contained a proviso for cesser of the term on performance of the trusts. There were eight children of the marriage, two of whom died infants before the date of the said settlement. The others of such eight children were the Defendant, Harriet Huguenin, who was born on the 28th of October 1810, Lucy Margaret Davies, who was born on the 21st of June 1812, and died in the month of November 1845, William Hamblett Davies, who was born in the year 1815, and died without issue in the month of July 1847, the Defendant, Elizabeth Ann Davies, who was born on the 9th of November 1818, John Stanley Davies, who was born on the 12th of December 1822, and died in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bermingham v Tuite and Others
...68. Clements v. Henry 10 Ir. Ch. R. 87. Simpson v. Frew 5 Ir. Ch. R. 525. Langstonv. LangstonENR 2 Cl. & Fin. 194. Davies v. HugheninENR 1 H. & M. 730. Ellis v. ThomasUNK 1 D. J. & S. 18. Hill v. Gemme 5 M. & Cr. 254. Chadwick v. DolemanENR 2 Vern. 528. Haddersley v. AdamsENR 22 Beav. 276. ......
-
Haverty v Curtis
...v. HiccocksENR 1 Atk. 500. Cameron and Wells 37 Ch. Div. 32. Currie v. LarkinsUNK 4 D. F. & J. 245. 1895—Vol. I. Davies v. HugueninENR 1 H. & M. 730. Dennis' Trusts 6 Ir. Ch. R. 422. Emperor v. RolfeENR 1 Ves. Sen. 208. Evans v. Scott 1 H. L. Cas. 57. Hall v. LietchELR L. R. 9 Eq. 376. Hinc......
-
Coffin v Cooper
...other appointees to make it good out of the shares which the donee of the power has ap-[376]-pointed to them by will, Doxies v. Hugwnin (1 H. & M. 730). I do not presume to say that that is a wrong decision; indeed, it seems to me that it is the legitimate result of the first innovation. Bu......
-
Caldbeck v Caldbeck
...G. J. & Sm. 18. (2) [1904] 2 Ch. 685. (3) [1900] 2 Ch. 683. (4) [1902] 1 Ir. 310, note. (1) 1 De G. J. & Sm. 18. (2) 2 Ves. Sm. 197. (3) 1 H. & M. 730. (4) 17 W. R. (5) 1 P. W. 448. (6) 2 De G. F. & J. 396. (7) [1904] 2 Ch. 685. (1) [1900] 2 Ch. 683. (2) [1904] 2 Ch. 685. (1) 1 De G. J. & S......