Hearne v Barber
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 February 1744 |
| Date | 28 February 1744 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 924
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
[212] Case 69.-stamper versus millar, February 20, 1744. A proviso in a settlement that 1000 shall and may be laid out by the trustees in the purchase of lands. "Where there is a power to lay out money in land, but the original intention was, it should be considered as money, if not vested in land, it shall not be considered as such, and go to the heir. A question in this cause arose upon a settlement made upon a marriage, in which there was a proviso, that one thousand pounds therein mentioned shall and may be applied and laid out by the trustees in the purchase of-lands and hereditaments, freehold or copyhold. It has been insisted by the plaintiff, the heir at law of the covenantor in the settlement, that the thousand pounds was at all events to be laid out in land ; and though the trustees have not done it, yet, that it is to be considered in this court as land (vide Guidot v. Guidot, 3 Atk. 254-), and consequently he is intitled to an account from the trustees' representatives. Lord Chancellor, Where there is a power to lay out money in land under some particular circumstances, but the original intention was that it should be considered as money, if it is not actually vested in land, it shall not be considered as land, and go to the heir. The first clause under the deed is a clear trust of money, and a complete direction of the intents and purposes for which it was created. All the words in the deed, while it is to continue money, are positive and imperative. But the proviso relating to the laying it out in land is only the aforesaid 1000. shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sen v Headley
...law. We can therefore turn away from the Roman law and give our whole attention to the English authorities. 12 In Snellgrove v. Baily (1744) 3 Atk. 213 a bond for £100 was given by one Spackman to Sarah Baily, who delivered it to the defendant, saying: "In case I die, it is yours, and then ......
-
Elliot v Collier
...3 Will. 317 (see 1 Atk. 403, & 3 Atk. 450), which must be something by way of portion or preferment to set the [17] child up with (3 Atk. 213, & Ibid. 450): So that a small sum, as 40 or 50 (he being a man of substance), would not be deemed an advancement, and here he disapproved of the mat......
-
Thomas Duffield, Esquire, and Emily Frances his wife, - Appellants; Amelia Maria Elwes, Widow, and Abraham Henry Chambers, Esquire, William Hicks, Clerk, and George Thomas Warren Hastings Duffield, Caroline Duffield, Maria Duffield, Anna Duffield, and Susan Eliza Duffield, Infants, by Original and Amended Bill, - Respondents
...paper. And of this case Lord Thurlow said he did not see the ratio deci-dendi. See Tote v. Hibbert (2 Ves. jun. 120). Snellyrove v. Bailey (3 Atk. 213), is the case of ai bond, but the reasons which Lord Hardwicke gives for that determination in Ward v. Turner (2 Ves. 442), are technical an......
-
Elliot v Collier
...to in the argument are 31 Edw. III. c. 11, and 21 Hen. VIII. c. 5. The case of Hearne v. Baker, adverted to by Lord Hardwicke, is in 3 Atk. 213. See the Decree in the principal case stated in 3 Atkins, 529 ; which agrees with Reg. Lib. English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 1104 HIGH COURT OF C......