Eilbeck v Wood
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1826 |
| Date | 01 January 1826 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 38 E.R. 217
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 5 L. J. Ch. (O. S.) 61.
[564] eilbeck v. wood. Rolls. July 5, Aug. 14, 1820. [S. C. 5 L. J. Ch. (O.S.) 61.] By deed of 4th November 1800 (being the settlement made on the marriage of A. and B.), the intended wife B., in exercise of a general power of appointment vested in her by a previous deed of the 4th of May 1799, appointed certain freehold houses to the use of trustees, during the joint lives of herself and her husband, for her separate use, with remainder in the event of her dying in the lifetime of her husband (which happened), as she should appoint by will, attested by three witnesses, with limitations over : Shortly after her marriage, B., by will duly-attested by three witnesses, devised the houses to her husband in fee ; afterwards, in 1811, she and her husband executed a deed, attested by two witnesses, by which, after reciting the indenture of the 4th May 1799, but not mentioning the marriage settlement, B., in exercise of the power given her by the deed of 1799, and of all other powers, &c., appointed the messuages to the use of her husband for lifo, 218 EILBECK V. WOOD 1RUSS. 566. remainder to the use of herself for life, remainder to the use of the children of the marriage as she should appoint, and, in default of appointment, to all the children equally in tail, with remainder to her husband in fee : Held, that the deed of 1811 did not operate as a revocation of the previous will. By indentures of lease and release of the 3d and 4tli of May 1799, and a recovery suffered in pursuance thereof, certain freehold messuages were limited to sued uses, and upon such trusts, as Catherine Merriman, whether sole or married, and notwithstanding any coverture, by any deed or deeds, writing or writings, with or without power of revocation, to be by her signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of, and to be attested by two or more credible witnesses, should appoint; in default of such appointment, upon trust for the separate use of Catherine Merriman ; and after her decease, to such uses and upon such trusts as she by will, attested by three or more witnesses, should appoint; and in default of appointment, to the use of all the children of Catherine Merriman in equal shares, as tenants in common in tail ; with remainders over. By indenture, bearing date the 4th of November 1800, being the settlement made on the marriage of Catherine Merriman and Beeby Eilbeck, the said Catherine, in exercise of the general power of appointment given to her by the indenture of the 4th of May 17'J9, appointed the messuages comprised in it to the use of herself, her heirs and assigns, till the intended marriage should take place, and, after the solemnization thereof, to the use of trustees and their heirs during the joint lives of Beeby Eilbeck and herself, upon trust for her separate use, and in case [565] sne should die in the lifetime of Beeby Eilbeck, her intended husband, then, after her decease, to such uses, upon such trusts, and for such intents, &c., as she, notwithstanding her intended coverture, by her last will and testament in writing, or any writing in the nature of or purporting to be her last will and testament, or any codicil or codicils thereto to be by her signed, sealed, published, and declared in the presence of, and to be attested by, three or more credible witnesses, should direct or appoint ; and, in default of such direction or appointment, to such uses, upon such trusts, and for such intents, &c., as, by the indenture of the 4th of May 1799, were limited and expressed concerning the premises after the decease of the said Catherine, or such of them as should be then subsisting or capable of taking effect. But in case Beeby Eilbeck should die in the lifetime of the said Catherine, then to such uses, upon such trusts, and for such intents, &c., as she Catherine, by any deed or deeds, writing or writings, with or without power of revocation, to be by her signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of, and to be attested by, two or more credible...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v Armstrong
...(5 Ves. 593); Jenkins v. Quinduint (5 Ves. 596, n.); Marquess of Breculalbane v. Marquess of Chandos (2 Myl. & Cr. 711); Elbeck v. Wood (1 Russ. 564); Plow-[53fj]-den v. Hyde (2 De G. M. & G. 684) ; Parsons v. Freeman (3 Atk. 741); Evans v. Evans (1 Drew. 654) ; Vawser v. Jeffery (16 Ves. 5......
-
Hughes v Turner
...act unless that act la operative for the purposes for which it was intended Matthews v. Venables (2 Bing. 136). EiXbeck v. Wood (1 Russ. 564). HUGHES V. TURNER 4 HAOG. ECC. 60 [60] In Powell v. Mouchett (Madd. and Greldart, 216) the Court of Chancery directed an issue whether a revocatory c......
-
Tebbott v Voules
...was not revoked as to the premises which were comprised in any of the contracts except those with Baylis and George. Eilbeck v. Wood (1 Russ. 564); Matthews v. Venables (2 Bing. 136). the vice-chancellor [Sir L. Shadwell]. In Eilbeck v. Wood the appointment of 1811 was executed by the wife,......
-
Riccard v Cole
...appointment, the transaction of 1807 was not intended to have any operation at all. Matthews v. Fenables (2 Bing. 136) ; Eilbeck v. Wood (1 Russ. 564). The doctrine of tenure does not come into operation in this case, and, therefore, it affords no ground for holding that the will was revoke......