Fox v Fox
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 July 1859 |
| Date | 25 July 1859 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 54 E.R. 118
ROLLS COURT
118 FOX V. FOX 27 BEAV. 301. [301] Fox v. Fox. July 25, 1859. A testator devised and bequeathed his real and personal estate to his widow, " to and for her own use and benefit absolutely, having full confidence in her sufficient and judicioua provision for my dear children." Held, that there was no trust in favor of the children. The testator, Robert Barclay Fox, by his will dated in 1854, gave as follows : - Finally, I give, devise and bequeath unto my tenderly beloved wife, Jane Gurney, all the residue of my estate, both real and personal, " to and for her own use and benefit, absolutely, having full confidence in her sufficient and judicious provision for my dear children." He appointed his wife and Alfred Lloyd Fox his executors. The testator died in 1855, and a question arose whether, under the residuary devise and bequest, Jane Gurney Fox was absolutely entitled, for her own benefit, to the residuary, real and personal estate, or whether such residuary, real and personal estate was devised and bequeathed subject to a trust for the benefit of the testator's children. This was made the subject of a special case. Mr. Follett and Mr. Edward Smith, for the Plaintiff, Jane Gurney Fox, argued that she took absolutely, subject only to a moral obligation to bring up and provide for her children. They cited Reeve* v. Baker (18 Beav. 372). [302] Mr. C. Hall, for the children, argued that there was, upon the authorities, a precatory trust in their favor. He cited Gully v. Cregoe (24 Beav. 185) ; Ware v. Mettard (16 Jur...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arthur Pageitt Greene and Godfrey Greene, Infants, v John Greene and Others
...v. Grant 2 Jur. N. S. 1127; 26 L. J. N. S. Ch. 92. Knight v. KnightENR 3 Beav. 172. Palmer v. SimmondsENR 2 Drew. 221. Cox v. CoxENR 27 Beav. 301. Shovelton v. ShoveltonENR 32 Beav. 144. Bonsal v. KinnearENR 2 Giff. 195. Briggs v. Penny 3 M. & Gor. 546. Moriarty v. Martin 3 Ir. Ch. R. 26. M......
-
Shovelton v Shovelton
...unlimited gift to her in the first instance, followed by something which was too uncertain for the Court to act on. He cited Fox v. Fox (27 Beav. 301); Webb v. Wook (2 Sim. (N. S.) 267); Palmer v. Simmons (2 Drew. 221). the master of the eolls [Sir John Eomilly]. I think that this is a prec......
-
Johanna Brenan v Andrew Brenan and Others
...Taylor v. PortingtonENR 7 De G. M. & G. 328. Sichel v. Mosenthal 31 L. J. N. S. Ch. 386. Winch v. BrusttonENR 14 Sim. 379. Fox v. FoxENR 27 Beav. 301. Foster v. SmithENR 1 Phil. 629. Baker v. Baker 6 H. L. Cas. 622. Carter v. Salt Ir. Rep. 1 Eq. 98. Colyear v. Lady MulgraveENR 2 Keen. 81. H......