Elliot v Collier
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 July 1747 |
| Date | 01 July 1747 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 861
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See In re Lambert's estate, Stanton v. Lambert, 1888, 39 Ch. D. 630.
elliot v. collier, July 1,1747. [See In re Lambert's estate, Stanton v. Lambert, 1888, 39 Ch. D. 630.] Executor of husband who survived his wife but did not take out administration, is entitled to her share under the custom of London, and her administrator is but a trustee for him. Personal presents, &c., no advancement so as to bar the customary share; neither was maintenance, though after marriage : the same being charged against her as a debt under the will.-S. C. 3 Atk. 526. [Supplement, p. 17.] A freeman of London dies, leaving no wife, but two daughters, declaring by his will that they were sufficiently advanced in his life by marriage or otherwise, and therefore his estate, notwithstanding the custom, was subject to his will; appointing the defendant Collier, who had married one daughter, executor and residuary legatee ; directing the other daughter to execute a release to Collier of her right to a customary share, and that for want of acquiescing [16] therein (" a freehold estate he had given " her should cease," &c., E. L.) she should allow 25 per annum for the testator's maintaining her from her first husband's death. The representative of her second husband, who survived her, but took out no administration, brings a bill for an account and satisfaction for her orphanage share. The first objection was, that it never having vested in the husband it was not transmissible to his representative; for which was cited Graisbrook v. Fox, Plowden [278 b], and Hole v. Dolman, Mich, term 1736, where it was so adjudged at the Commons, 862 ELLIOT V.. COLLIER 1 VES. SEN. 17. and that the next of kin was intitled under the statutes of E. 3, and H. 8 [31 Ed. 3, c. 11, and 21 H. 8, c. 5]. The second objection was upon the custom, that she had been already fully advanced. Lord Chancellor. Whoever takes out administration, can be but trustee for the husband, for here the right does not follow the administration; which, though the spiritual court may think themselves obligated to grant to the,next of kin, that does not bind the right, which was vested in the husband here, though he took not out administration, and is transmissible to his representative; the ground of which is, that the husband has been determined not to be within the provision of the statute of distribution ; for he himself is intitled to all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bailey v Wright
...of kin : The King v. Dr. Bettes-[52]-worth (2 Sir. 1111): Cart v. Bees mentioned in Squib v. Wigan (1 P. Witt. 381): Elliot v. Collier (1 Ves. sen. 15; 3 Atk. 526 ; 1 Wils. 168); and Fetliplace v. Gorges (3 Bro. C. C. 8 ; 1 Ves. jun. 46); where Lord Thurlow expresses that opinion in terms. ......
-
Milne v Gilbart
...and wife, and therefore not precisely conformable to the provisions of the statute." Lord Harclwicke, in Elliott v. Collier (3 Atk. 528; 1 Ves. sen. 15; Wils. 168), says, " Upon the equity of the Statute of Distributions, this Court makes an administrator de bonis non only a trustee for suc......
-
Metcalfe v Metcalfe
...next of kin only, such administrator will be a mere trustee for the husband: Elliot v. Collier (3 Atk. 526, S. C.; 1 Wils. 168, and 1 Ves. sen. 15). Where a suit abates by the death of a party, and the representative of the deceased party is brought before the Court by a bill of revivor, no......
-
In the Goods of Mary Alicia Gill
...teansmiasibility from him as the person entitled to administration at the time of his wife's decease. Elliot v. Collier, 1 Wilson, 168, 1 Ves. sen. 15, 3 Atk. 526 These authorities are certainly entitled to very great respect. But, on the other hand, there are cases according to which the r......