Ellis v Selby
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 March 1835 |
| Date | 23 March 1835 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 58 E.R. 872
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Affirmed, 1 My. & Cr. 286; to note (40 E. E. 384) add In re MacDuff [1896], 2 Ch. 463; In re Best [1904], 2 Ch. 354.
Will. Construction. Uncertainty. Remoteness.
[352] ellis v. selby. March 23, 1835. [Affirmed, 1 My. & Cr. 286 ; to note (40 E. E. 384) add In re MacDu/[189G], 2 Ch. 463 ; In re Best [1904], 2 Ch. 354.] Will. Construction. Uncertainty. Remoteness. Testator gave his bank stock to trustees, in trust for F. B. for life, and his funded property to the same trustees, in trust for W. R. E. for life, and, after his death, in trust for his issue; and he directed the trustees, after the decease of F. B., to pay the dividends of bis Bank stock to W. R. E. for life, and, after his decease, to apply the dividends and capital for the benefit of the children or child of W. R. E., in such manner as he had directed respecting his funded property ; and, should W. R. E. die mthout issue male or female of his body lawfully begotten, then he directed the trustees to apply his funded property and Bank stock, for such charitable or other purposes as they should think fit, without being accountable to any person ; and he gave the residue of his personal estate and effects, wines, pictures, _plate, books and furniture, to W. R. E. Held, that the ultimate trust of the funded property and bank stock was not too remote, but was void for uncertainty; and that the residuary clause was general. 7 SIM. SB. ELLIS V. SELBY 873 Peter Eichard Lahy, by his will, dated the 10th of June 1815, gave 600 Bank stock to Messrs. Wright, Selby and Eobinson, upon trust to pay the dividends to Frances Bennett for her life; and he gave legacies of 50 each to Wright, Selby and Robinson.; and to William Richard Ellis (who was an illegitimate child) all his freehold messuages or tenements, with the appurtenances, situate at Arundell and in Great Ormond Street in the county of Middlesex, for hia life, with remainders to his first and other sons successively in tail male, with remainder to Wright, Selby and Robinson in fee, upon the trusts after mentioned. The testator also gave to them all his stock or funded [363] property in the four per cents, and other public funds, upon trust to pay the dividends to Ellis, during his life, and from and after his decease: " Then upon trust (should the aaid William Richard Ellis have issue of his body lawfully begotten, whether male or female) to pay and appropriate the interest and dividends of my said funded property for and towards the maintenance and education of such issue, if more than one, share and share alike, and if only one, to and for the maintenance of such only one, during his, her or their nonage, and, on their attaining respectively the age or ages of 21 years, to transfer or make over to them, if more than one, in equal shares, parts and proportions, and if only one, then to such one only, the whole of the said stock or funded property. And my will is that, from and after the decease of the said Frances Bennett, to whom I have left and bequeathed the dividends and produce of my Bank stock during her life, my said trustees do pay the dividends and profits thereof, as the same shall become due, unto the said William Richard Ellis, for and during the term of his natural life, and, from and after his decease, do pay and apply the dividends thereof and also the whole of the said Bank stock, to and for the benefit and advantage of the lawful children or child, if only one, of the said William Richard Ellis, in such manner as I have hereinbefore willed and directed respecting my stock or funded property : And I do hereby will, declare and direct that, if the said William Richard Ellis should happen to die without issue male of his body lawfully begotten, then and in such case the trusts respecting my said freehold property are to be, that my said trustees do sell and dispose of the same for the best price or prices that can be reasonably got or obtained [354] for the same, and do pay, thereout, to Martin Butler, &c., the legacies or sums of ,100 to each oi them, and that my said trustees do retain to themselves the further legacy or sum of 100 to each of them; and that my said trustees do retain to themselves what shall remain in hand from the produce of the sale of my said freehold property after payment of the said last-mentioned legacies, upon trust to pay, apply and distribute the same to and for such charitable or other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whicker v Hume
...532), James v. Allen (3 Mer. 17), Ommaney v. Butcher (Turn. 260), Williams v. Kershaw (1 Keen, 232, n.; 5 Cl. & Fin. Ill), Ellis v. Selby (7 Sim. 352), Kendall v. Granger (5 Beav. 300). [THE lord justice knight bruce. If in Williams v. Kershaw the word " benevolent" had alone been used it w......
-
Carter v Bentall
...as to the first moiety, " issue " meant children ; and the gift over in default of issue (meaning children) would be valid, Ellis v. SelLy (7 Sim. 352), Gawler v. Cadby (Jacob, 346); and as to the second moiety, that a gift to the children of the daughter must be implied, and it must be tak......
-
Catherine Stewart v Malachy Green, William Hynes, Elizabeth Bourke, and The Attorney-General
...Knight v. Selby 3 M. & Gr. 92. Smith v. SmithENR 11 C. B. N. S. 121, 138. Morice v. The Bishop of Durham 10 Ves. 521. Ellis v. SelbyENR 7 Sim. 352. Vezey v. JamsonENR 1 Sim. & St. 69. Baker v. SuttonENR 1 Keen. 224. Wilkinson v. LindgrenELR L. R. 5 Ch. App. 570. Carbery v. CoxUNK 3 Ir. Ch. ......
-
Re Sinclair
...224. Wilkinson v. LindgrenELR L. R. 5 Ch. 570. In re Brikett 9 Ch. Div. 576. Morice v. The Bishop of Durham 10 Ves. 522. Ellis v. SelbyENR 7 Sim. 352. Williams v. KershawENR 5 Cl. & Fin. 111. James v. AllenENR 3 Mer. 17. Felan v. Russell 4 Ir. Eq. R. 701. Copinger v. Crehane Ir. R. 11 Eq. 4......