Drury v Smith
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1717 |
| Date | 01 January 1717 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 24 E.R. 446
LORD CHANCELLOR COWPER.
Case 111.-drtjry versus smith. [1717.] Lord Chancellor Cowper. 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 575, pi. 3. One by will disposes of his personal estate, and afterwards by parol gives 100 bill to one, to deliver over to his nephew, if the testator should die of that sickness ; such gift decreed good.(l) A. had a nephew, and being about making his will, directed the scrivener employed by him for that purpose, to give 100 to his nephew; afterwards the testator, recollecting that his nephew had 100 of his in his handsftherefore ordered the scrivener not to put the legacy into his will, iii regard his nephew had already that 100 in his own hands, and the testator made B. (that was his niece) executrix and residuary legatee. [405] Afterwards the nephew came, and brought a specie bill for this 100 to the testator, who, in his last sickness, gave the said 100 bill to be delivered over to his nephew, in case he [the testator] should die of that sickness, which did accordingly happen. 1 P. WMS. 406. WINCHESTER (BISHOP of) V. KNIGHT 447 And now, on the nephew's bringing a bill against the executrix, for this 100 note, it was objected, that this being a parol gift, and contrary to the will, by which the1 executrix was made a residuary legatee, it would introduce all the inconvenience of perjury which the statute of frauds intended to prevent, if such evidence, or verbal dispositions, should prevail against the will, and would be contrary to the words of the statute (sect. 22), which say, a will in writing shall not be revoked by parol. Lord Chancellor: The case is not so strong, as if this very 100 note had been specifically devised; for devising the residuum, is only the rest of his estate, that he should not, by will, or otherwise dispose of ; but this is a gift in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v Darton
...and Mr. Moxon supported the exceptions, and cited Snellgrave v. Bailey (3 Atk. 214), Hurst v. Beach (5 Madd. 355), Drury v. Smith (1 P. Wms. 404), Hill v. Chapman (2 Bro. C. C. 612), Walter v. Hodge (2 Swanst. 92), and 8 & 9 Viet, c. 76, s. 4. Mr. Walker and Mr. Prybr, contra, referred to F......
-
Ward v Turner
...hath been received in England, only so far as the gift had been attended with delivery (Swinburne, Part 1st, sect. 6 ; Drury v. Smith, 1 P. Wms. 404; Lawson v. Lawson, ibid. 441; Jones v. Selby, Precedents in Chan. 300; Hedges v. Hedges, ibid. 269; Snellgrove v. Bailey, March 1744; 3 Atk. 2......
-
Bouts v Ellis
...the wife's right to the £1000. A cheque may be the subject of a donatio mortis causa; Lawsvn v. Laivsm (1 P. Wms. 441); Dmry v. Smith (1 P. Wms. 404). the master of the eolls [Sir John Romilly]. I think I can see my way to carry into effect the intention of the testator, without any violati......
-
Kelly v O'Connor
... ... assets are deficient) are payable out of the subject-matter of a donatio mortis causâ, which, in this case, is the deposit receipt for £923: Drury v. Smith (7), referring to Smith v. Casen (8), from which it would appear that jewels given by a testator by way of donatio mortis causâ were ... ...