Gibson and Others against Rogers and Others; Rogers against Gibson and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1750 |
| Date | 01 January 1750 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 58
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
58 GIBSON V. ROGERS AMB. 93. [93] Case 41.-gibson and Others against rogers and Others ; rogers against gibson and Others. [1750.] Devise of real and personal estates to trustees, their executors, administrators, and assigns, out of rents and profits to pay certain annuities and legacies, held a trust, not a chattel interest in the trustees.-[Lib. Keg. 1749, A. fo. 583, nom. Gibson v. Lord Mount/ord. S. C. 1 Ves. 485 ; 4 Ves. 288, n.] In Chancery, June 25, 1750. Mr. Shepherd, of Exning, in Cambridgeshire, by will, gave all his freehold, leasehold, copyhold estates, and also his personal estates, to trustees, to hold to them, their executors, administrators, and assigns, in trust, to pay certain annuities and legacies out of the interest and produce (" out of the interest and produce of his personal estate." L. R.) of his personal estate, and in case of want of sufficiency of personal estate, then out of the rents and profits of his said real estate. And as for and concerning all the rest, residue, and remainder of his said real and. personal estate, of what nature or kind soever, after provision made for payment of the said annuities and legacies, he gave the same to such child or children as his daughter Frances Gibson, otherwise Frances Shepherd (who was his natural daughter, and to whom he had given the greatest part of his estate), should have of her body lawfully begotten, whether male or female, equally to be divided between them, share and share alike, taking upon them the name of Shepherd; and then taking notice, that he had made no provision for the disposal of the rest, residue, and remainder of his said real and personal estate, in case his said daughter Frances Gibson, commonly called Frances Shepherd, should die without issue of her body lawfully to be begotten, then he gave the same, after payment of the said annuities and legacies, unto Christopher Jefferson and Joseph Pyke, equally to be divided between them, share and share alike, they taking the name of Shepherd. By a codicil, September 26,1744,(1) he revokes the bequest to Jefferson, and declares that he shall have no benefit from the residue of his estate, and devises the same to Samuel Shepherd and the said Joseph Pyke, equally to be divided between them for their lives; and directed that the annuities as they should fall in should go back to the representatives of his real and personal estates, and be eqxially divided between the said Samuel Shepherd and Joseph Pyke, [94] provided his said daughter should die leaving no issue of her body lawfully begotten; but in case his said daughter should leave at her death any child or children, then such annuities as should fall in should be divided amongst such children, or go to such only child; and his will was, and he desired, that the said codicil should be, and be adjudged to be, part and parcel of his last will and testament. (Note : On 25th March 1745, he made a second codicil, revoking two of the legacies given by his will.-It does not appear in Lib. Reg. whether either of the codicils were attested;-the same remark is however applicable to the will,-there being no mention...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sophia Phipps, Widow, - Appellant; George Holland Ackers, - Respondent
...Post. Works (p. 191); Doe v. Lea (3 T. Rep. 41); Stephens v. Stephens (Cas. Temp. Talb. 229); Gibson v. Lord Montfort (1 Ves. sen. 485 ; Amb. 93); Bullock v. Stones (2 Yes. sen. 521); Doe v. Nowell (1 Maule and S. 327; 5 Dow, 202); Doe v. Moore (14 East, 601), (which he contended was a wron......
-
Carpenter against Chapman
...1215. 3 Com. Dig. "Devise" (N. 7). (b) Wright v. Pearson, Amb. 362. Fillers v. Fillers, 2 Atk. 72. Gibson v. Mountfort, 1 Vezey, 491. S. C. Amb. 93. Bagshaw v. Spencer, 2 Atk. 578. Oates v. Markham, 3 Burr. 1684. 336 EASTER TERM, 10 GEO. 1. IN CHANCERY 9 MOD. 93. land to J. S. " paying ten ......
-
James Ackers (an Infant, by N. C. Milne, his Guardian) v Phipps (Widow)
...of the estate, for it gives them an absolute power over the capital of the estate [676] itself. In Gibson v. Lord Montfort (1 Ves. 485; Ambler, 93) there was a devise of real, leasehold, copyhold, and personal estate to trustees, their executors, etc., first for payment of annuities, etc., ......
-
James Ackers (formerly called James Coops)(an Infant), by Nathaniel Charles Milne, his Guardian, - Appellant; Sophia Phipps, Widow, - Respondent
...judgment avoids disposing of them. But that [466] which totally distinguished the filecutter's case from Gibson v. Mont-ford [1 Ves. 485 ; Amb. 93], and from the present case is, that it is not the case of a general residue at all: it is only a gift of the " real and personal estate at Ashg......