Dilkes v Broadmead
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 December 1860 |
| Date | 21 December 1860 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 45 E.R. 740
BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD CAMPBELL.
S. C. 30 L. J. Ch. 268; 7 Jur. (N. S.), 56; 3 L. T. 605; 9 W. R. 238. Followed, Adamson v. Hammond, 1873, L. R. 3 P. & D. 149.
[566] dilkes v. bkoadmead. Before the Lord Chancellor Lord Campbell. Dec. 4, 7, 21, 1860. [S. C. 30 L. J. Ch. 268; 7 Jur. (K. S.), 56 ; 3 L. T. 605 ; 9 W. R. 238. Followed, Adawson v. Hammond, 1873, L. Pv,. 3 P. & D. 149.] Assets of a testator, consisting of personalty which could be identified, ware settled bo-ndfide upon the marriage of his daughter and residuary legatee. Held, that- they thereupon ceased to be liable to subsequently accruing claims in respect of breaches of covenants which had been entered into by the testator, but of which the parties to the settlement had no notice when they executed it. The limitations and covenants in a marriage settlement are not severable as being in part only supported by the consideration of marriage, smthle. This was an appeal from the dismissal by Vice-Chancellor Stuart of the Plaintiffs bill with costs. (See Dilkes v. Broadmmd, 2 Gift'. 113.) By indenture, dated the 28th February 1822, H. Hewitt demised to Charles Dilkea, his executors, administrators and assigns, a stable, house and premises situate at Cork, for a term of 9000 years, to be computed from the 29th September then last, at an annual rent of 53. The deed contained the usual covenants on the part of the lessee to pay the rent and keep the demised premises in repair. By indenture, dated 31st July 1828, Charles Dilkes, in consideration of 100, demised to James Bucknell, his executors, administrators and assigns, the heredita- a DEO. P. fcj. B67. DILKES V. BROADMEAD 741 menta and premises comprised in the indenture of February 1822, for a term of 8000 yearSj to commence from the 25th March then last, at the annual rent of 53. The indenture contained the usual covenants on the part of James Bucknell to pay the rent, and to repair and keep in good tenantable condition the premises thereby demised, with a proviso that it should be lawful for James Bucknell, his executors, administrators and assigns, during the continuance of the term, to pay the [567] rent of the demised premises as it became clue to H. Hewitt, under whom Charles Dflkes held the same, and that the receipts of H. Hewitt, his executors, administrators and assigns, should be deemed and taken by Charles Dilkes, his executors, administrators and assigns, to be good and valid discharges for such payments. Charles Dilkes died in October 1846, intestate. James Bucknell by his will, dated the 15th June 1829, after giving certain pecuniary and specific legacies, gave and bequeathed all other his monies and securities for money, goods, chattels and personal estate, of what nature or kind soever, to his brother William Bucknell, upon trust, after giving thereout to his daughter Harriett Bucknell such articles as he might think proper to select for her, as soon as conveniently might be after his (the testator's) decease to convert the same into money and to invest the same on Government or landed security in England or Ireland as he should think proper, and upon further trust, to receive and take the interest and dividends and annual proceeds of the trust-monies, and pay so much thereof as he might think proper, in addition to the dividends and interest arising for the use of his (the testator's) said daughter under his marriage settlement, in and upon the maintenance, clothing and education of his said daughter until she should attain the age of twenty-four years, or be married under that age with his previous consent in writing; and as to all the rest, residue and remainder of such dividends, interest and proceeds which should not be applied as aforesaid, that his said brother should invest the same on such securities as before mentioned, and should pay and transfer and assign the said trust estate, with the accumulations thereof, to his said daughter, when she should attain the age of twenty-four years, or be married [568] under that age with the consent of his (the testator's) brothel1 testified as before mentioned; and in case his said daughter should marry before she attained the age of twenty-four years without the previous consent in writing of his said brother William, in case he should be then living, or of any trustee or trustees:, to be appointed as thereinafter mentioned, then upon such trusts as are in the will mentioned. And the testator declared that in case his daughter should marry under the age of twenty-four years with the consent of his said brother William, if he should be then living or of any new trustee or trustees, to be appointed as thereinafter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leahy v De Moleyns
...NicolsonENR 2 De G. & J. 693. Dibb v. WalkerELR [1893] 2 Ch. 429. Dickinson v. TeesdaleENR 1 De G. J. & S. 52. Dilkes v. BroadmeadENR 2 De G. F. & J. 566. Dilkes v. BroadmeadENR 2 Giff. 113. Dix v. BurfordENR 19 Beav. 409. Forsyth v. BristoweENR 8 Ex. 716. Gillespie v. AlexanderENR 3 Russ. ......
-
Ridgway v Newstead
...Gillespif, v. Alexander (3 Kuss. 130); Grdg v. Somereitte, (1 Russ. & M. 338); March v. fiuxsel (3 Myl. & C. 31); Dilkes v. Eroadmead (2 Giff. 113 ; 2 De G. F. & J. 566). [482] Mr. Elmsley and Mr. Wickens, for the Defendant John Tenney Newstead. If the Plaintiffs could sustain their case, i......
-
Williams v Massy
...Beav. 559. (f) 4 Ir. Chan. Rep. 215. (g) 2 P. W. 147. (h) Ibid, 150. (a) 4 De G., M. & G., 460. (b) 8 Sim. 260. (c) 7 Beav. 112. (d) 2 De G., F. & J., 566. (e) 7 Ir. Eq. Rep. 436. (f) 10 Ir. Chan. Rep. 206. (g) 10 Hare, 179. (a) 1 P.W. 494n. (b) 3 P. Wms. 328. (c) 4 Ir. Chan. Rep. 215. (d) ......