Doughty v Saltwell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 June 1847 |
| Date | 19 June 1847 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 60 E.R. 768
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Limitation by Words of Reference. Will. Construction.
[640] doughty v. saltwell. June 19, 1847. Limitation by Words of Reference. Will. Construction. Testator bequeathed certain houses in trust for his granddaughter Martha, for her separate use for her life, and on her decease, in trust to apply the rents for the maintenance of her children then living, and when they should all attain twenty-one, in trust to sell and divide the produce amongst them equally ; and in case Martha should die without leaving issue, to divide the produce amongst such of the testator's grandchildren thereinafter named as should be living at her decease. And the testator, by three separate and subsequent clauses, bequeathed other houses in trust for hia granddaughters Charlotte, Sarah and Harriett, for their separate use for their lives, and repeated after each clause " and after her decease, in trust for the issue of her body in the same manner and subject to the same conditions and limitations as hereinbefore expressed in the bequest to my granddaughter Martha." In a subsequent part of his will he declared that if all his said granddaughters should die IB SIM. Ml. DOUGHTY V. SALTWELL 769 without leaving issue, all the houses mentioned in his will should fall into the residue of his estate. Charlotte died leaving issue. Harriett died without issue. Held, that the houses bequeathed in trust for her went over to Martha and Sarah, as being the only grandchildren of the testator living at her death. Thomas Neale made his will, bearing date the 31st of October 1807, and in the following words:- "First, I will and direct that all my just debts, funeral expenses, and the charges of proving this my will shall be paid and discharged with all convenient speed after my decease; and afterpayment thereof I give and bequeath unto my son, Thomas Neale, all those my leasehold messuages and tenements numbered 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, situate on the north side of Monmouth Street, in the parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, in the county of Middlesex, and also my three leasehold messuages or tenements situate in High Street, in the parish of St. Mary-le-bone, in the said county of Middlesex, to hold to the said Thomas Neale and his heirs, upon trust that my said trustee and his heirs do and shall pay to, or otherwise authorise, permit and suffer my granddaughter, Martha Cubitt, to receive and take the rents, issues and profits of the said three messuages numbered 3, 4 and 5, in Monmouth Street aforesaid, free [641] from all incumbrances, for and during the term of her natural life, exclusive of any husband or husbands she may hereafter marry, and over which he or they shall have no control, nor shall the same, or any part thereof, be subject or liable to his or their debts or engagements in anywise; and I direct that the receipt or receipts of my said granddaughter, Martha Cubitt, shall, notwithstanding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M'Namara v Blake
...N. S. 169. Crompton v. WombwellENR 4 Sim. 628. Kelly v. LennonENRUNK 1 Jo. & Lat. 305; S. C. 7 Ir. Eq. Rep. 98. Blackburne v. StanilandENR 15 Sim. 640 Smith v. EffinghamUNK 11 Jur. 896. Semple v. PriceENR 10 Sim. 238. v. MorrisENR 1 Hare, 420. Jones v. StowellsENR 2 Hare, 42. Howells v. Bak......
-
Pigott v Wilder
...divisible into sixths, and William and Elizabeth are excluded. He cited and commented on the following cases:-Doughty v. Saltwell (15 Sim. 640); Longdon v. Simson (12 Ves. 295); Ross v. Eoss (2 Coll. 269); Mil/torn v. Awdry (5 Ves. 465); Shawe v. Cunli/e (4 Bro. C. C. 143); Davies v. Hopkin......