Ellis v Selby
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 February 1836 |
| Date | 01 February 1836 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 40 E.R. 384
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 5 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 214; 7 Sim. 352. See Briggs v. Penny, 1849, 3 De G. & S. 543; Dean v. Gibson, 1867, L. R. 3 Eq. 716; Yeap Cheah Neo v. Ong Cheng Neo, 1875, L. R. 6 P. C. 389; King v. George, 1876, 4 Ch. D. 442; In re Jarman's estate, 1878, 8 Ch. D. 587; In re Hewitt's estate, 1883, 53 L. J. Ch. 134. For Williams v. Kershaw, cited 1 My. & Cr. 293, 298 (S. C. 5 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 84). See Baker v. Sutton, 1836, 1 Keen 232; Mitford v. Reynolds, 1842, 1 Ph. 190. As to charitable bequests held void, see Loscombe v. Wintringham, 1850, 13 Beav. 89, n., and cases there collected.
,^.A^.3a(i, ' ' ellis v. selby. Jan. 22, Feb. 1, [1836]. [S. C. 5 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 214; 7 Sim. 352. See Briggs v. Penny, 1849, 3 De G. & S. 543; Deanv. Gibson, 1867, L. R. 3 Eq. 716; Yeap Cheah Neo v. Ony Clieng Neo, 1875, L. R. 6 P. C. 389 ; King v. George, 1876, 4 Ch. D. 442; In re Jarrmm'n estate, 1878, 8 Ch. D. 587; In re Hewitt's estate, 1883, 53 L. J. Ch. 134. For Williams v. Kwshaw, cited 1 My. & Cr. 293, 298 (S. C. 5 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 84). See Baker v. Sutttm, 1836, 1 Keen 232 ; Mitford v. Reynolds, 1842, 1 Ph. 190. As to charitable bequests held void, see Loscombe v. Wintnnyham, 1850, 13 Beav. 89, n., and cases there collected.] A testator, after giving a fund to his executors upon certain trusts, declared it to be his will that in the event of the failure of those trusts, an event which happened, 1 MY. &; CR. M7. ELLIS 'I'. SELBY 385 his said trustees, and the survivors and survivor of them, his executors or administrators, should pay and apply the fund to and for such charitable or other purposes as they, his said trustees, and the survivors or survivor of them, his executors or administrators, should think fit, without being accountable to any person or persons whomsoever for such their disposition thereof. Held, that these words created a trust, but a trust of so indefinite a nature that it could not be carried into effect; the bequest, therefore, failed, and the fund fell into the residue. Peter Richard Lahy by his will, elated the 10th of June 1815, gave to Thomas Wright, since deceased, and to Nicholas Tuite Selby and Henry Robinson, the sum of £600 Bank stock, being the whole of his property in that fund, upon trust to pay the dividends to Frances Bennet, for her life, for her separate use ; and he also gave legacies to different persons, including legacies of £50 a-piece to Wright, Selby, and Robinson; and he devised to William Richard Ellis all his freehold mes-[287]-suages or tenements in the town of Arundel and in Great Ormond Street, for life, with remainder to his first and other sons successively in tail male; and for want of such issue he devised all the same premises to Wright, Selby, and Robinson, their heirs and assigns for ever, upon the trusts and to and for the intents and purposes thereinafter expressed and declared of and concerning the same. The testator then gave and bequeathed all his stock or funded property in the 4 per cent, and 3 per cent, consols, 3 per cent. Reduced, and 5 per cent. Navy Bank annuities, to Wright, Selby, and Robinson, and the survivors arid survivor of them, and the executors and administrators of such survivor, upon trust to pay to W. R. Ellis, during his life, the whole of the dividends due or to become clue thereon, and, after the decease of W. R. Ellis, upon trust for the benefit of his issue as therein mentioned ; and the testator directed that, after the decease of Frances Bonnet, his said trustees and the survivors and survivor of them, and the executors and administrators of such survivor, should pay the dividends and profits of his Bank stock to W. R. Ellis during his life, and, after his decease, for the benefit of his lawful child or children, in such manner as he had thereinbefore willed and directed respecting his stock or funded property ; and he thereby declared and directed that, if W. R. Ellis should happen to die without issue male of his body lawfully begotten, the trusts respecting his freehold property should be, that his said trustees should sell and dispose of the same, and pay thereout certain further legacies, and that his said trustees, T. Wright, N. T. Selby, and H. Robinson, should retain to themselves the further legacy of £100 to each of them; and that his said trustees, or the survivors or survivor of them, his executors or administrators, should retain to themselves what should remain in hand from the produce of the sale of his said freehold property after pay-[288]-ment of the last mentioned legacies, upon trust to pay, apply, and distribute the same, to and for such charitable or other purposes as his said trustees and the survivors and survivor of them, his executors or administrators should think fit, without being answerable or accountable to any person or persons whomsoever for such their disposition thereof. The testator then expressed himself as follows :-"And should the said William Richard Ellis die without issue male or female of his body lawfully begotten, then and in such case my will is, that my said trustees and the survivors and survivor of them, and the executors and administrators of such survivor, do pay or cause to be paid to the said Frances Benuet, from and out of the dividends of my said funded property oue annuity ox-further annual sum of £40 during the term of her natural life ; and subject to such annuity, that my said trustees and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chichester Diocesan Fund & Board of Finance (Incorporated) v Simpson
...of the construction of the particular will, whether its language sufficiently evinces a charitable trust. As Lord Cottenham L.C. said in Ellis v. Selby, 1 My. & Cr. 286, "the present, like other cases of construction, depends upon the particular language which the testator has used, and ve......
- Attorney-General (New South Wales) v Adams
-
Moore deceased; Moore v The Pope
...(2) 1 Vesey, Jr., 548. (1) 9 Ves. 399; 10 Ves. 521. (1) 3 Mer. 17. (1) 9 Ves. 399; 10 Ves. 521. (2) 5 Cl. & F. 111. (3) 3 Mer. 17. (1) 1 My. & Cr. 286. (2) 5 Cl. & F. 111. (3) 9 Ves 399; 10 Ves. 521. (4) 3 Mer. 17. (1) 5 Bev. 300. (2) 8 Ch. D. 584. (1) 7 Sim. 352. (2) 5 Cl. & F. 111. (3) [1......
-
Attorney General v Lawes
...can be applied to general charitable purposes : Corbyn v. French (4 Ves. 418). It is too indefinite to have that effect: Ellis v. Selby (1 My. & Cr. 286). On the question of costs, they submitted that, the administratrix having set apart and appropriated the stock to answer the annuity, it ......