Greene v Ward
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1826 |
| Date | 01 January 1826 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 38 E.R. 102
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
greene v. ward. Rolls. May 10, July 17, [1826]. After the dismissal of the bill in the case of Andree v. Ward, one of the daughters of George Greene filed her bill, claiming to be entitled absolutely to the 5500 stock, either alone, as his personal representative, or, along with her two sisters, as the issue of his body. Mr. Bolfe, for the Plaintiff. In Love v. Windham (Levins, 290), it was held " that a devise of a term to one and his issue, with a remainder over, is all one with a devise to one for life, and, if lie dies without issue, to another." Hero the gift is, first to George Greene for life, and, in case of his decease, leaving no issue of his body, remainder to another; which is equi-[263]-valent to a gift to George Greene and the issue of his body, with remainder over, in case of his decease leaving no issue. The words of the will, therefore', being such as in freeholds of inheritance would have given George Greene an estate tail, confer on him the absolute interest in this personal chattel. Mr. Pepys for the other children of George Greene. George Greene takes only an estate for life, and there are no words which can extend his interest beyond that limit. On the other hand, it is clear, that, in the event which has happened, the remainders over do not take effect, and that it was not the intention of the testator that this portion of his property should be included in the general residue. The remainders over were postponed for the sake of the issue of George Greene's body ; and it is only by giving the issue aci interest in the fund, by implication, that all the wards of the testator can be satisfied, and his intention effectuated. Mr. Wright, for the personal representative of William Ward, the residuary legatee. 1 BUSS. 264. SMITH V. ATTERSOLL 103 July 17. The Master of the Rolls [Lord Gifford]. Those, who represent George Greene, contend, in the first place, that the effect of the testator's words is, to create a quasi estate tail in George Greene, and, consequently, to give him the absolute property of this personal chattel. If that construction cannot be maintained, they say, in the second place, that there is at least an implied gift to the issue of his body. On the other hand, some of those, to whom the fund is in one event given over, contended, in a former suit, that the bequest over had taken effect ; but my opinion upon [264] their claim was, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hedges v Blick
...and that therefore the subject of the gift being personalty they took absolute interests; Simmons v. Simmons (8 Sim. 22), Greene v. Ward (1 Russ. 262). The gift over is on failure of issue of the first takers. Now in the gift to Charlotte the word "such " is used, which shews that the testa......
-
Neighbour v Thurlow
...is stated in Webster v. Parr (26 Beav. 236), that " Lord Cottenham declined to follow " it, and it is inconsistent with G-reene v. Ward (1 Russ. 262). Secondly, the three children are joint-tenants of I 28 BEAV. M. NEIGHBOUR V. THURLOW 279 an interest to endure during the three lives; Cooks......
-
Ranelagh v Ranelagh
...bounty, for nothing is given to them expressly; and it is clear, from the decisions in An/lree v. Ward (1 Russ., 260), and Greene v. Ward (1 Russ., 262), that they can take nothing by implication as purchasers. The general principle is, that where the words of gift are such as to create, in......
-
Lee v Busk
...Blachoell v. Bull (1 Keen, 176), Gockshott v. Coclcshott (2 Coll. 432), and contended that Andree v. JFard (1 Russ. 260), Greene v. 7Fard (1 Russ. 262), Ranelagh v. Ranelagh (12 Beav. 200), Cooper v. Pitcher (4 Hare, 485), were distinguishable from the present case, Mr. Bethell, Mr. Faber a......