Dowling v Hudson

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 June 1852
Date01 June 1852
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 1028

ROLLS COURT

Dowling
and
Hudson

[248] dowling v. hudson. June 1, 1852 ; June 22, 23, 1853. A tstator ordered his debts to be paid by his executors, an,d after giving legacies, he gave the residue of his real and personal estate, subject as aforesaid, to A., and he appointed A. and B. executors. Held, that if the legacies were charged on the real estate, the debts must also be charged thereon, and that therefore A. was able to give valid receipts for the purchase-money of the real estate, which relieved a purchaser from the necessity of seeing to its application. The testator expressed himself as follows:-"First, I order and direct that all my 17HBAV.2. BOWLING .V. HUDSON 1029 just debts and funeral expenses shall be paid by my executors, as soon after my decease as may be convenient." He then directed an annual mass for the repose of his soul, the expenses to "be defrayed out of the residue of his estates; " and he gave his wife and sister annuities, " to be charged and chargeable on his property at High Park. He next bequeathed to his daughter, Anne Hudson, " the sum of 2000 sterling," to be paid on her day of marriage. He gave his son Hugh certain leasehold houses, provided he attained twenty-one, subject to the head rents and other charges. He proceeded, " And as to all the rest, residue and remainder of my property, real, freehold and personal, in Great Britain and Ireland, or elsewhere, I give, devise and bequeath the game, subject as aforesaid," to my son Patrick Hudson. He appointed his son Patrick Hudson and J. C. M'Cann his executors. The testator died in 1840. Patrick Hudson received personal estate to the amount of about 3600, which he misapplied. He sold a freehold house of the testator, situate at Bath, to the Defendant Henry Belt, who had notice of the will. The house was conveyed in June 1850. [249] Patrick Hudson, after having misapplied the estate, absconded, without paying the legacy of 2000, bequeathed to the testator's daughter Anne, who, by this bill, sought to charge it upon the Bath house, purchased by Mr. Bell. (See 14 Beav. 423.) The bill had been taken pro confesso against Patrick Hudson, and the contest now remained between the Plaintiff and Mr. Bell. Mr. R. Pahner and Mr. Dean, for the Plaintiff. First, the legacies are charged upon the real estate, for it is devised to Hudson, " subject as aforesaid," i.e., subject to the prior legacies. The blending of the real and personal estate, in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Dady v Hartridge
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 27 Julio 1858
    ...Campbell (Ibid. Ill, n.); Tombs v. Bock (2 Coll. 490); Jones v. Price (11 Sim, 557); Gfervis v. Gervis (14 Sim. 654); Howling v. Hudson (17 Beav. 248); Emussv. Smith (2 De G. & Sm. 734); Francis v. Clemow (I Kay, 435); Cogswell v. Armstrong (2 K. & Joh. 227); WTieeler v. Howell (3 K. & Job.......
  • Re Bagot's Estate
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 20 Junio 1900
    ...854 Charter v. CharterELR 3 Ch. D. 218. Conron v. Conron 7 H. L. Cas. 168. Creagh's EstateUNK 25 L. R. Ir. 128, 139. Dowling v. HudsonENR 17 Beav. 248. Duffy v. Brady Milw. 582. Foster v. SmithENR 1 Phil. 629. Goodwin v. PrinceELR [1898] 2 Ch. 225. Harloe v. HarloeELR L. R. 20 Eq. 471. Hodg......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT