Gough v Bult
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 August 1848 |
| Date | 04 August 1848 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 60 E.R. 898
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 16 Sim. 45. See Mutlow v. Bigg, 1874, L. R. 18 Eq. 248.
Interest. Legacy. Statute of Limitations.
[323] QouGH v. bult. August 4, 1848. [S. C. 16 Sim. 45. See Mutlow v. Bigg, 1874, L. R. 18 Eq. 248.] Interest. Legacy. Statute of Limitations. A testator who died in 1823 directed the trustees of his will to raise a legacy by sale of his real estates. Held that the legatee was not barred by the 42d sect, of the Statute of Limitations (3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27) from claiming interest on the legacy from the end of the first year after the testator's death. The testator in this cause, after bequeathing certain leasehold messuages to trustees in trust for his wife, ordered and empowered the trustees to sell so many and such of those messuages so that his wife's income should in no case be reduced under 500 a year, and to pay and apply such part of the monies to arise from such sale, not exceeding 2000, to each of his sons, John and Samuel, for setting them or either of them up in business, or for such other purposes as his wife should think proper and most beneficial for them. The testator died in 1823 : his son John died in 1832 ; and, the before-mentioned trust being wholly unperformed so far as it related to John, the bill was filed in 1847 to have 2000 raised with interest and paid to the Plaintiff, his personal representative. Tha Defendants, the executors and trustees of the will, put in a general demurrer to the bill ; which the Vice-Chancellor overruled ; and the Lord Chancellor affirmed Hia Honour's decision. (See ante, p. 45.) The cause now came on to be heard. The only question was whether the Plaintiff was entitled to interest on the 2000 from the end of the first year after the testator's death, or whether he was not barred, by the 42d sect, of the Statute of Limitations, 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27, from claiming interest except for the last six years. [324] Mr. Bethell and Mr. James, for the Plaintiff, said that the 2000 was to be raised under a trust, and that the Statute of Limitations had no application to cases of trust; Ward, v. Arch (ante, vol. xii. p. 472), and Young v. Lord Waterpark (ante, vol. xiii. p. 199 ; see p. 204). Mr. Stuart and Mr. Stinton, for the Defendants, said that as the object of the suit was to have a legacy raised, the 42d sect, of the Statute of Limitations...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kellett v Kellett
...R. 3 Eq. 142. Dickenson v. TeasdaleENR 31 Beav. 511. Byrne v. RobinsonIR 1 Ir. Eq. 333. Dillon v. CruiseIR 3 Ir. Eq. 70. Gough v. BultENR 16 Sim. 323. Edwards v. MorganENR M'Clel. 554. M'Donnell v. WhiteENR 11 H. L. C. 570. Pattison v. HawkesworthENR 10 Beav. 375. Harcourt v. WhiteENR 28 Be......
-
Gyles v Gyles
...Ir. Eq. Rep.. 82. Young v. WaterparkENR 13 Sim. 204. Roch v. CallenENR 6 Hare, 531. Phillipo v. Munnings 2 M. & Cr. 309. Gough v. BultENR 16 Sim. 323. Hunt v. BatemanUNK 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 384. Knight v. BowyerENR 23 Beav. 609. CHANCERY REPORTS. 135 reason, which may be stated in the words of ......
-
Johanna Smith, Petitioner; Ralph Smith and William Sidney Smith, Respondents. Same Petitioner; Richard Flood Smith, Respondent
...11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 138. Francis v. GroverENR 5 Hare, 39. Commissioners of Donations v. WybrantsUNK 7 IR. Eq. Rep. 580. Gough v. BultENR 16 Sim. 323. Ward v. ArchENR 12 Sim. 172. Playfair v. Cooper 23 Law Jour., Ch., 341. Hunt v. BatemanUNK 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 370. Young v. Wilton 10 Ir Eq. Rep. 19......