Elton against Sheppard
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 June 1781 |
| Date | 18 June 1781 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 28 E.R. 1282
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Rishton v. Cobb, 1839, 5 My. & Cr. 152; Re Coward, Coward v. Larkman, 1887, 56 L. T. 280.
elton against sheppard. Bolls, [31 May, and] 18th June 1781. [See Rishton v. Oobb, 1839, 5 My. & Cr. 152 ; Ee Coward, Coward v. Larkman, 1887, 56 L. T. 280.] A gift of personalty to trustees to pay the interest to A. [with a power to dispose of the fund hi/ will as she pleased, and without any other words of limitation (1)], an absolute gift of the principal. Mary Trubshaw gave, by will, to trustees, £2000 in trust to pay the [interest] to her daughter Mary Elton, wife of Abraham Elton, Esq., mother of the plaintiff, for her own sole and separate use, independent of her husband, and not subject to his debts or controul, her receipt alone to be a sufficient discharge for the same ; and did authorise, impower, and appoint, her said daughter, to give and dispose of the said £2000 as she should, by any will or writing under her hand, direct and appoint (1) : And the testatrix gave the residue of her personal estate to the same trustees, in trust to pay the [interest thereof] to Mary Elton, during her life, her receipt alone to be a sufficient discharge; and after her death, in trust, to pay the interest to the testatrix's [533]grand-daughter the plaintiff for life, and in case her said grand-daughter should die, leaving any child or children at her death, she authorised and impowered her said granddaughter, to give, bequeath, and dispose of such residue, to such child or children, in such manner as she should think fit; but, if her grand-daughter should die without leaving any child, or children at her death, she gave the said residue to the children of her brother, William Sheppard, one of the trustees. The £2000 was set apart, and Mary the daughter died without having made any appointment. It was claimed by Mary the grand-daughter, as part of the personal estate of her mother, either as an absolute gift to her, or as undisposed of in the event which had happened, and therefore resultingfor the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Royal North Shore Hospital of Sydney v Attorney-General (Nsw)
-
Rishton v Cobb
...Hwusdon (2 Swan. 342), Poor v. Mial (6 Madd. 32), Hale v. Beck (2 Eden, 229), Philipps v. Chamberlaine (4 Ves. 51), Elton v. Sheppard (1 Bro. C. C. 532), Rawlings v. Jennings (13 Ves. 39), Page v. Leapingwell (18 Ves. 463), Adamson v. Armitage (19 Ves. 416), Stretch v. Watkins (1 Madd. 253)......
-
Bowyer v Blair
...v. Westcott 13 Ves. 453. Jennor v. HardiesENR 1 Leon. 283. Anon.ENR 3 Leon. 71. Goodtitle v. Otway 2 Wilson, 6. Elton v. ShephardENR 1 Bro. C. C. 532. Doe d. Herbert v. Thomas 3 A. & El. 127. Barford v. Street 16 Ves. 135, 139. Roe v. Yeud 2 New R. 221. Doe v. RoutENR 7 Taun. 82. Church v. ......
-
Re Andrew's Will
...without issue, which he could not do. I am of opinion she took an absolute interest. (1) 1 Sim. (N. S.) 536; and see Elton v. Shepard, 1 Bro. C. C. 532; Paye v. Leapingwell, 18 Ves. 463; and Haig v. Sidney, 1 Sim. & St. 487. English Reports Citation: 54 E.R. 241 ROLLS COURTRe Andrew's Will......