Dipple v Corles
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 June 1853 |
| Date | 07 June 1853 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 68 E.R. 1239
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
[183] dipple v. cobles. June 7, 1853. A testator, having nine children, by his will gave all his property to one of them, who, at the funeral, said he would divide the property equally between his brothers and sisters and himself, and that the whole should be sold, that it might not be said he had taken any more than the others. He subsequently acted, in respect of a portion of the property, according to the intention thus expressed; and with the assent of the other children, and at a valuation approved by them, he became the purchaser of a house and premises, part of the estate. Held, with regard to the property which remained undivided, that the expressions of the devisee were no more than a promise to give and divide it amongst the brothers and sisters, and that as such promise it was nudwn pactum, and did not amount to a declaration of trust in their favour. 1240 DIPPLB V. CORLES 11 HARE, 184. The testator, having nine children, gave by his will the whole of his property to his eldest son. The eldest son, on the day of the funeral, communicated to the family his determination to divide the estate equally between himself and his brothers and sisters ; adding that he proposed to sell everything in order that it might not be said that he had taken more than any of the others. He afterwards sold some personal chattels, and became himself the purchaser of the house in which the testator lived at a sum fixed or assented to by the rest of the family-the husband of a married sister having signed a document expressing such assent on her behalf. Whilst a portion of estate was still undisposed of a judgment creditor of Thomas, one of the sons, filed his bill against his debtor, and Edward, the eldest son, praying that it might be declared that the Plaintiff had a valid charge for the amount of his judgment debt and interest upon the share of the remaining hereditaments therein described, which the bill claimed as held by Edward upon trust for Thomas, and praying that Edward might be decreed to assign such share to the Plaintiff, and to account to the Plaintiff for the share of Thomas in the rents and profits of the premises previously to the assignment; and that, as against Thomas, the Plaintiff might have the benefit of the charge by foreclosure, sale or otherwise. Mr. Southgate, for the Plaintiff, argued that the language and acts of the Defendant Edward, with reference [184]...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Williams v Lloyd; Re Williams
-
Miller v Harrison
...& G. 176. Scales v. MaudeENR 6 De G. M. & G. 52. Bridge v. Bridge ENR 16 Beav. 315. Paterson v. MurphyENR 11 Hare, 88. Dipple v. CorlesENR 11 Hare, 183. Re GloverENR 2 J. & H. 186. In re Mills's Estate 7 W. Rep. 372. Forbes v. Forbes 6 W. Rep. 92. Donaldson v. DonaldsonENR Kay, 718. Airey v......
-
Gee v Liddell
...the Plaintiffs, argued that the second testator was under no legal obligation to pay the 1000, and had created no trust; Dipple v. Carles (11 Hare, 183). Secondly, that the extra 1000 had been discharged by the payment to Thomas Whitaker of that sum in 1852. Thirdly, that the debt, being th......
-
Muggeridge v Stanton
...(4 Hare, 67); Gosling v. Gosling (3 Drew. 335); M'Fadden v. Jenkyns (1 Hare, 458); Vanderberg v. fahner (4 K. & J. 204); Dipple v. Carles (11 Hare, 183). The mere investment of these sums of stock in the names of the trustees without more does not raise such a presumption of intention on th......