Heath v Lewis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 May 1853 |
| Date | 04 May 1853 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 43 E.R. 374
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. 22 L. J. Ch. 721; 17 Jur. 443; 1 W. R. 314. See In re Moore, 1888, 39 Ch. D. 121.
; [954] heath v. lewis. Before the Lords Justices. May 4, 1853. [S. C. 22 L. J. Ch. 721; 17 Jur. 443 ; 1 W. R. 314. See In re Moore, 1888, 39 Ch. D. 121.] A bequest of an annuity to an unmarried woman (if living and unmarried at the death of a prior annuitant) for the term of her natural life, if she should so long remain unmarried: Held, to be a limitation, and not a bequest upon a condition subsequent, and therefore determinable upon marriage. This case came on on further directions, and was by order heard by their Lordships originally. The question arose on the effect of a bequest in the will of Henry Heath, dated the 24th of December 1842. The will, after directing payment by the trustees of (among other life annuities) an annuity of £100 per annum to one Mrs. Martha Bentick, for her life, contained the following further declaration of trust:- " And if Miss Mary Ann King, the niece of the said [956] Martha Bentick, shall be living and unmarried at the decease of the said Martha Bentick, do and shall, as -a further mark of my sense of the obligation Mrs. Martha Bentick has conferred on me by her great attention and care, pay to the said Mary Ann King the sum of £2, 10s. per calendar month (making £30 a year) during the term of her natural life, if she shall so long remain sole and unmarried; the first payment thereof to be made at the end of one calendar month after the decease of the said Martha Bentiek." The testator died on the 28th of August 1843. Mary Ann King survived Martha Bentick, and afterwards, on the 4th-of November 1848, married a Mr. Turnbull. The question was, whether the annuity had determined. Mr. Chandless and Mr. Caldecott, for the Plaintiff. Mr. Greene, for Mr. and Mrs. Turnbull. This is a bequest upon a condition subsequent, which, being against public policy, is inoperative. If the bequest had been to the annuitant for her life, if she should not marry, or if she should continue unmarried, it would be clearly one subject to a condition subsequent, the word " if " implying a condition: Marples v. Bainbridge (1 Madd. 590), Rishton v. Cobb (9 Sim. 615 ; 5 Myl. & Cr. 145). If so, can the introduction of the words "so long," which add nothing to the meaning, have the effect of changing the conditional bequest into a limitation 1 Sir James Wigram has, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elliott, Deceased. Montgomery v Poterton
... ... In Evans v. Rosser (3), the observations of Lord Hatherley (then Sir W. Page Wood, V.-C.), in adopting the doctrine of Heath v. Lewis (4), are much in point. I think the real meaning of the clause is a limitation until marriage and then over, the intention being to give the ... ...
-
Evans v Rosser
...reading of this will: Webb v. Grace (2 Ph. 701); Fearne, Cont. Rem. (9th ed. 273); Right v. Cimiptmi (9 East, 267); Heath v. Lewis (3 De G. M. & G. 954); Brawn v. Gutter (Sir T. Raym. 427); Potter v. Richards (24 L. J. Ch. 488). [192] Even when the restraint on marriage takes the form of a ......
-
De Wayer v SPCA Johannesburg
...and not to prevent him from marrying. Cf. Theobald on Wills, 11th ed. p. 535; Potter v Richards (1855) 24 L.J. Ch. 488; Heath v Lewis, 43 E.R. 374 L.J.J.; In re King's Trust, (1892) 29 L.R. Ir. 401; Re Elliott, 1918 (1) Ir. 41; Theobald, supra, at pp. 439, 414. 1963 (1) SA p78 As to (d) whe......
-
Levy, NO and Another v Schwartz, NO and Others
...in Roman or Roman-Dutch Law. Even if this distinction is recognised the test is not one of form but of intention. See Heath v Lewis (43 E.R. 374). With regard to the conditional postponement of the gift to the applicants' children 1948 (4) SA p931 the case of Borwick's Settlement (1916 (2),......