Grant v Lynam
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 March 1828 |
| Date | 13 March 1828 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 38 E.R. 815
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 6 L. J. Ch. (O. S.) 129. See Liley v. Hey, 1842, 1 Hare, 582; In re Deakin, 1894 3 Ch. 576.
[292] grant v. lynam. Bolls. Feb. 16, March 13, 1828. [S. C. G L. J. Oh. ((). S.) 1'2'J. See Liley v. Hey, 1842, 1 Hare, 582 ; In re Deakin, [1894] 3 Ch. 57U.J Where a donor recommends or directs, that the donee, at her death, shall give his personal property to such of his family or such of his relations as she shall think fit, the donee has a power to select the objects of her bounty amongst his relations or family, though not within the degree of next of kin. But if the donee does not exercise the power, the word " relations," or the word " family," will be construed " next of kin," unless the special expressions of the donee have a different import. The testator, John Veal, made his will, inter alia, in the following words : - "I give and bequeath my present dwelling-house, garden, premises, and land adjoining, now in the occupation of Mr. Charles Baker, to ElizabetJi, my dearly beloved wife, for her use and benefit during her life, and with a power of giving and disposing of the said house and premises after her decease, with the limitation and condition of her bequeathing the same to any one of my own family she may think proper. Item, I give and bequeath to my said wife all my household furniture, plate, linen, books, and other utensils ; and, after her decease, to any one or more of my own family she may wish or direct." Elizabeth Veal, the testator's wife, survived him, and by her will " gave and bequeathed all her leasehold property, her monies and securities for money, goods, furniture, chattels, personal estate and effects whatsoever, subject to the payment of her just debts, funeral and testamentary expenses and legacies, to trustees upon trust to convert the same into money, and to stand possessed of the same, for the only use and benefit of John Grant, when he should attain twenty-one ; and if he should die before twenty -one, then to the only use and benefit of the brothers and sisters of the said John Grant who should be living at the time of his decease, with benefit of survivorship between them." It was proved in the cause, that the testatrix, at the making of her will and 816 GRANT V. LYNAM 4 BUSS. 293. her death, had no other leasehold property than the dwelling-house bequeathed t [293] her by her husband. John Grant, the legatee, was nearly related to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reeves v Baker
...parties interested. The following cases were cited :-Forbes v. Ball (3 Mer. 437); Winch v. Brutton (14 Sim. 379); Grant v. Lynam (4 Russ, 292); Massey v. Sherman (Ambl. 520); Burrell v. Burrell (Ibid. 660). Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Rogers, for the heir at law and one of the next of kin of the-test......
-
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Broadway Cottages Trust
...all these cases are found to be examples of a mere power to distribute and not of an imperative direction as in this case. Grant v. Lynam, 4 Russ. 292; Salusbury v. Denton, 3 K. & J. 529; In re Deakin(1); In re Scarisbrick, [1951] Ch. 622; and In re Jones, [1945] Ch. 105, are all examples o......
-
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Broadway Cottages Trust
...all these cases are found to be examples of a mere power to distribute and not of an imperative direction as in this case. Grant v. Lynam, 4 Russ. 292; Salusbury v. Denton, 3 K. & J. 529; In re Deakin(1); In re Scarisbrick, [1951] Ch. 622; and In re Jones, [1945] Ch. 105, are all examples o......
-
Sheehy v Nugent
...IN RE GUN. SHEEHY and NUGENT. Attorney-General v. Doyley 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 195. Finch v. HollingsworthUNK 21 B. 112. Grant v. LynamENR 4 Russ. 292. Harding v. GlynENR 1 Atk. 469. In re Deakin; Stanley v. EyresELR [1894] 3 Ch. 565. In re Patton; Dunlop v. GreerIR [1899] 1 I. R. 324. Jackson's Wi......