Douglas v Douglas
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 February 1854 |
| Date | 21 February 1854 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 69 E.R. 169
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 23 L. J. Ch. 732. See Goodlad v. Burnett, 1855, 1 K. & J. 345; Everett v. Everett, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 126; 7 Ch. D. 428; In re Portal and Lamb, 1884-85, 27 Ch. D. 602; 30 Ch. D. 50; Cave v. Harris, 1887, 57 L. J. Ch. 64.
Will Speaking from Testator's Death. Specific Legacy. Contrary Intention.
[400] douglas v. douglas. JW. 21, 1854. [S. C. 23 L. J. Ch. 732, See Goodlad y. Burnett, 1855, 1 K. & J. 345; Everett vl Everett, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 126; 7 Ch. ,D. 428; In re Portal and Lamb, 1884-85, 27 Ch. D. 602; 30 Ch, D. 50; Gave v. Harris, 1887, 57 L. J. Ch. 64.] I Viet. c. 26, s. 24. Will speaking from Testator's Death. Specific Legacy. Contrary Intention. The 24th section of the 1 Viet. c. 26, which provides that a will shall speak and take effect as if executed immediately before the death of the testator, unless a contrary intention appear by the will, will probably give an extended effect to what would have been a specific bequest of a class of personal property before the statute. For instance, a bequest, since the Act, of "all my stock" would probably pass all the stock of the testator at the time of his death; but a gift of "all my stock which I have purchased" must be confined to stock actually purchased at the date of the will. _ : . ".:.' A will made since the statute contained the words, " I hereby exonerate my sister from all claims in respect of money laid out by me in improvements of the estates in Scotland, and which money has according to the laws of Scotland been charged V.-C. xiv,-6* 170 DOUGLAS V. DOUGLAS KAY, Ml. thereon." Held, that this exoneration only applied to moneys so charged at the date of the will, and not to money afterwards laid out and charged, nor even to money then laid out, but afterwards charged. Alexander Houston Douglas made his will, dated the 30th of June 1843, of which the material part was as follows :- "I give and bequeath to my sister Miss Elizabeth Houston the sum of 1000 of lawful money, to be paid to her my said sister within three months next after my decease, to purchase any article as a token of remembrance of me; and I do also acquit and absolutely exonerate my said sister from all payments and claims in respect of money laid out by me in repairs and improvements of the estates in Scotland of which I am in possession, or receipt of the rents as heir of entail, and which money has, according to the laws of Scotland, been charged thereon, a proportion whereof my said sister, as the next heir in tail of the same estates, might otherwise have to pay, contribute, or make good to my representatives or personal estate. And I hereby declare that the bequest to or in favour of my said sister by this my will would have been of much larger amount had she been in need of it; but as my said sister has a fortune of her own, and will acquire a large addition thereto at my decease, I have only left the above bequest as a remembrance and token of my sincere affection for her. . ; . And as to all the rest, residue, and remainder of my real and personal estate and effects whatsoever and wheresoever, and of what nature or kind soever, and whether in possession, remainder, reversion, or otherwise, of or to which I may die seised, possessed, or entitled, or in, or to, or over which I have, or, at the time of my decease, may have, any right, [401] interest, or power of gift, devise, bequest, direction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lady Langdale v Briggs
...They also referred to Cole v. Scott (1 Mac. & G. 518); Cockran v. Cockran (14 Sim. 248); Doe v. Walker (12 M. & W. 591); Douglas v. Douglas (Kay, 400); Goodlad v. Burnett (1 K. & J. 341); Knight v. Davis (3 Myl. & K. 358). Mr. Cairns and Mr. Martineau, for Lady Langdale. As to Miss Harley's......
-
Green v Dunn
...Mr. Greene, for Martha Colpitts, the other co-heiress, cited C'olf, v. ticott (1 H. & Tw. 477 ; 1 Mac. & G. 518); Douglas v. Douglas (1 Kay, 400). Mr. Haig, for two of the nieces and residuary legatees, cited Williams v. Gootltitle (10 B. & Cr. 895). Mr. R. Palmer, in reply. the master of t......
-
Webb v Byng
...the date of the will will pass by force of ss. 24 and 26 of 1 Viet. c. 26 : Doe d. York v. Walker (12 M. & W. 591), Douglas v. Douglas (Kay, 400). Mr. Headlam, Q.C., and Mr. Thring, for the heir, contended that the devise must be confined to that part of the property of the testatrix which ......
-
Miles v Miles
...leasehold, and it had ceased to exist between the date of the will and the death of the testator. They also referred to Douglas v. Dour/las (Kay, 400); Gfoodlad v. Burnett (1 Kay & Johns. 341); Blagrow v. Goore (27 Beav. 138); Lord St. Leonards' Eeal Property Statutes (p. 365). Mr. Selwyn, ......