Emperor v Rolfe
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 February 1748 |
| Date | 09 February 1748 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 986
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Shenck v. Legh, 1804, 9 Ves. jun. 310; Fry v. Lord Sherborne, 1829, 3 Sim. 257; Evans v. Scott, 1847, 1 H. L. C. 57; Mendham v. Williams, 1866, L. R. 2 Eq. 399; Eastwood v. Lockwood, 1867, L. R. 3 Eq. 494. Distinguished, In re Willmott's Trusts, 1869, L. R. 7 Eq. 537. See Jeyes v. Savage, 1875, L. R. 10 Ch. 558, n. Distinguished, Chell v. Chell, 1875, 23 W. R. 253. See Day v. Radcliffe, 1876, 3 Ch. D. 657. Applied, Wakefield v. Maffett, 1885, 10 App. Cas. 422, 433, 436. See In re Hamlet, Stephen v. Cunningham, 1888, 38 Ch. D. 187.
emperor v. rolfe, February 1748-9. [See Shenck v. Legh, 1804, 9 Ves. jun. 310; Fry v. Lord Sherborne, 1829, 3 Sim. 257 ; Evans v. Scott, 1847, 1 H. L. C. 57 ; Mendham v. Williams, 1866, L. R. 2 Eq. 399 ; Eastwood v. Lockwood, 1867, L. R. 3 Eq. 494. Distinguished, In re Willmott's Trusts, 1869, L. R. 7 Eq. 537. See Jeyes v. Savage, 1875, L. E. 10 Oh. 558, n. Distinguished, Chell v. Chell, 1875, 23 W. R. 253. See Day v. Baddiffe, 1876, 3 Ch. D. 657. Applied, Wake field v. Maffett, 1885, 10 App. Gas. 422, 433, 436. See In re Hamlet, Stephen v. Cunningham, 1888, 38 Ch. D. 187.] Portions in a settlement by a term after mother's death for defendants, to grow due and payable at twenty-one or marriage, &c., one daughter having, after twenty-one and marriage, died in life of mother, her portion shall go to her representatives, and not to her sister.-[Supplement, p. 113.] In a settlement a sum of money was provided by a term after the mother's death for daughters portions, to grow due and payable at twenty-one or marriage : and if any of them should die, before their portions became due and payable, it should go to the surviving daughters, with directions to the trustees for maintenance, till the sum grew due and payable. There were two daughters : both attained twenty-one, and married : but one of them dying in life of the mother, the other claimed the whole sum by survivorship against the children and representatives of the deceased daughter, as not being a vested interest till the mother's death. Lord Chancellor. This is a very harsh demand : that a child living till twenty-one, marriage, and that with consent, having...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duffield v M'Master
...in favour of. Held, by the Court of Appeal, affirming the decision of the Master of the Rolls, that the rule in Emperor v. Rolfe (1 Ves. Sen. 208) was applicable, and that J. took an absolute interest in the property on attaining age, although he did not survive G. Motion. The proceedings i......
-
Leader's Estate
...IN THE MATTER OF LEADER'S ESTATE Emperor v. RolfeENR 1 Ves. sen. 208 Howgrave v. CartierENR 3 v. & B. 79 Woodcock v. the Duke of Dorset 3 Br. C. C. 569. Swallow v. BinnsENR 1 K. & J. 417. Wakefield v. MaffetELR 10 App. Cas. 422. Beale v. Connolly Ir. R. 8 Eq. 412. Day v. Radcliffe 3 Ch. Div......
-
Johnstone and Others v Stewart Beattie (an Infant)
...acted upon either in England or in Scotland, I do not think that any reliance can be placed upon it. However, the case Ex parte Lewis (1 Ves. sen. 208) is a direct authority to show that for some purposes the Courts of this country will recognize a curator or guardian appointed by a foreign......
-
Haverty v Curtis
...v. LarkinsUNK 4 D. F. & J. 245. 1895—Vol. I. Davies v. HugueninENR 1 H. & M. 730. Dennis' Trusts 6 Ir. Ch. R. 422. Emperor v. RolfeENR 1 Ves. Sen. 208. Evans v. Scott 1 H. L. Cas. 57. Hall v. LietchELR L. R. 9 Eq. 376. Hinchinbroke v. Seymour Ibid. 395. Howard's Trusts 7 Ir. Ch. R. 344. Kin......