Gibbs v Rumsey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 December 1813 |
| Date | 06 December 1813 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 35 E.R. 331
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Green Jackson, 1828-31, 5 Russ. 38; 2 Russ. & My. 238; Amphlett v. Parke, 1831, 2 Russ. & My. 229; Cooke v. The Stationers' Company, 1831, 3 My. & K. 264; Whitaker v. Tatham, 1831, 5 Moo. & P. 641; Ellis v. Selby, 1836, 1 My. & Cr. 297; Briggs v. Penny, 1849-51, 3 De G. & Sm. 542; 3 Mac. & G. 546. Loscombe v. Wintringham, 1850, 13 Beav. 89 n. and the cases there collected: Buckle v. Bristow, 1864, 10 Jur. N. S. 1095. See Yeap Cheah Neo v. Ong Cheng Neo, 1875, L. R. 6 P. C. 389. Distinguished, Young v. Sinclair, [1903] W. N. 113.
2V. &B. 294. GIBBS V, RUMSEY 331 [294] gibbs v. rumsey. Bolls. Dec. 3, 6, 1813. [See Green \. Jackson, 1828-31, 5 Euss. 38 ; 2 Russ. & My. 238 ; Amphlett v. Parke, 1831, 2 Euss. & My. 229 ; Gooke v. The Stationers' Company, 1831, 3 My. & K. 264 ; Whitaker v. Tatham, 1831, 5 Moo. & P. 641 ; Ellis v. Selby, 1836, 1 My. & Or. 297; Briggs v. Penny, 1849-51, 3 De G. & Sm. 542; 3 Mac. & G. 546. Loscombe v. Wintringham, 1850, 13 Beav. 89 n. and the cases there collected: Ruckle v. Bristow, 1864, 10 Jur. N. S. 1095. See Yeap Cheah Neo v. Ong Cheng Neo, 1875, L. K. G P. C. 389. Distinguished, Young v. Sinclair, [1903] W. N. 113.] Money, produced by the Sale of real Estate, bequeathed for charitable Purposes, a resulting Trust for the Heir. Executors, having equal Legacies for their Care and Trouble, Trustees of the Residue for the next of Kin. Residuary Bequest to Trustees and Executors, described both by their Character and Names, to be disposed of to such Person and Persons, and in such Manner and Form, and in such Sum and Sums of Money, as they in their Discretion shall think proper and expedient, an absolute Interest to them beneficially; or an absolute Power of Appointment; excluding the next of Kin, and the Heir as to the Produce of real Estate. (Note : On resulting Trust, see Hill v. Cock, 1 V. & B. 173, and the Cases referred to in the Notes.) Ann Clarke, by her Will, dated the 12th of December 1809, having given to her Executors, her Household Goods, Watches, Trinkets, Plate, and wearing Apparel, to be disposed of to such Persons and in such Proportions, as they, or the Survivor of them, should in their or his Discretion think proper, devised and bequeathed her Freehold, Copyhold, and personal, Estate, to Henry and James Rumsey, their Heirs, Executors, Administrators, and Assigns, upon Trust to sell; and out of the Money to arise by such Sale...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Briggs v Penny
...v. The Bishop of Durham (10 Ves. 522), Dawson v. Clark (15 Ves. 409, 18 Ves. 247), Parsons v. Baker (18 Ves. 476), Gibbs v. Rumsay (2 V. & B. 294), Gladding v. Yapp (5 Madd. 56), fPhittaker v. Tatham (7 Bing. 628), Fowler v. Garlike (1 Russ. & M. 232), Ray v. Adams (3 Myl. & K. 237), Ellis ......
-
The Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Gloucester v Wood
...(3 Swans. 585), Morice v. Bishop of Durham (9 Ves. 399; S. C. 10 Ves. 527, 536), Hill v. Bishop of London, (1 Atk. 620), Gibbs v. Rumsey (2 V. & B. 294), Martin v. Douch (1 Cha. Ca. 198), Cruwys v. Golman (9 Ves. 319), Smith v. Fitzgerald (3 V. & B. 2), Biblin v. Ambler (Ambl. 661), Faughan......
-
Cooke v The Stationers' Company
...HtittJirxon v. Hammond (3 Bro. C. C. 128), MMhtan v. Cater (4 Bro. C. C. 409), Arnold- v. Chapman (1 Ves. sen. 108), Gibla v. Jiumsey (2 V. & B. 294), Jmex v. Mitchell (1 Sim. & Stu. 290), Gravenor v. Halium (Ambl. 643). ^VTiere real estate is not directed to be sold, and the residuary devi......
-
Green v Jackson
...v. Dewes (3 P. Wins. 40), Collins v. Wake-man (2 Ves. Jun. 083), Hutcheson v. Hammond (3 B. G. C. 128). The case of Oibbs v. Rumsey (2 V. & B. 294) is in words almost the same with the present ; and there Sir William Grant says, " Such part of the real estate, as is given to charitable purp......