Dormay v Borradaile
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 May 1847 |
| Date | 03 May 1847 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 583
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 16 L. J. Ch. 337; 11 Jur. 379.
[263] dormay v. borradaile. May 3, 1847. [S. C. 16 L. J. Ch. 337 ; 11 Jur. 379.] A testator devised certain equitable real estates to his executors, as such, in trust for his wife and children, and bequeathed everything else to his wife, and he stated as follows : " My executors are charged with the payment of my just debts, of which I shall leave an account with the letter to my wife." Held, that the testator's debts were charged on these real estates ; and, secondly, that the charge was general, and not limited to those enumerated in the account. The testator, by his will, dated the 30th of May 1828, expressed himself as follows :- I do devise all my property of every description to my beloved wife A. S. B. Borradaile, and I trust entirely to her executing, as far as possible, all the bequests I have made in a letter to her, bearing the same date as this will. I do appoint as my executors the Rev. Joseph Shaw, Mr. Abraham Borradaile, Miss S. Borradaile, my sister, and my beloved wife, A. S. B. Borradaile. To these my executors I give, 584 DORM AY V. BOREADAILE 10BBAV.284. all that the advowson and right of presentation to the living of Wandswortb, in trust for my said wife during her lifetime, and for my children equally at her death. I give also to my said executors, in trust for my said wife and children, all my estate at Wandsworth," &c. " All my wines, books, household furniture, plate, trinkets, and everything else, of whatever description, belonging to me, I do give to my said beloved wife, for her sole use and benefit. My executors are charged with the payment of my just debts, of which I shall leave an account, with the letter named above, to my dear wife." The testator at his death had real estate, but the legal estate was not vested in him. The testator had specialty debti to the amount of 5000, of which 2900 only were enumerated in the account with the letter to his wife. The question now raised was, first, whether the real estates devised to the executors were charged with the testator's debts; and, secondly, whether they were [264] charged with his debts generally, or with those only of which the testator left an account with the letter to his wife. Mr. Kindersley and Mr. Campbell, for the Plaintiff, a simple contract creditor. The testator died subsequent to the passing of the 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 104 (August 1833); and, if that Act...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v Dawson
...to pay the testator's debts can extend no further than the estate given to her ; Henvdl v. IVltitaker (3 Russ. 343); Dor/nay v. Bmradaile (10 Beav. 263); Finch v. Hattershy (3 Buss. 345, n.); Warren v. Demies, (2 Myl. & K. 49); Don d. Ashby v. Baines (2 Cr. M. & R. 23); Symons v. James (2 Y......
-
M'Carthy v M'Cartie
...CresswellELR L. R. 2 Ch. 112. Cornwall v. SaurinUNK 17 L. R. Ir. 595. Dickinsom v. TeesdaleENR 1 De G. J. & S. 52. Dormay v. BorradaileENR 10 Beav. 263. Fisher v. WiggENR 1 P. Wms. 14. Fisher v. WiggENR 1 P. Wms. 57. Fisher v. WiggELR 9 Ch. D. 646. Fordham v. WallisENR 10 Hare, 217. Forth v......
-
Hartland v Murrell
...v. Whiiaker (3 Russ. 343); Jarman on Wills (vol. 2, pp. 502, 508 (2d edit.)); and see Powdl v. Robins (7 Ves. 209); Dormay v. Bmradaile (10 Beav. 263). the master of the eolls [Sir John Romilly]. The banking company was justified in taking the word of the executors, and if they raised the m......
-
The Right Hon. JOHN RICHARDS, one of the Barons of HM Court of Exchequer, CAROLINE RICHARDS, Widow, CAROLINE MARIA RICHARDS, otherwise WOODHOUSE, and another, v CROASDAILE MOLONY, HENRY MOLONY and Others
...3 Russ. 130. Williams v. Chitty 3 Ves. 545. Graves v. GravesENR 8 Sim. 43. Harding v. Grady 1 Dru. & War. 430. Dormay v. BorrodaileENR 10 Beav. 263. Ball v. Harris 4 Myl. & Cr. 264. Ellard v. Cooper 1 Ir. Jur. 27; since reversed on appeal, 1 Ir. Chan. Rep. 376. Price v. NorthENR 1 Phillips,......