Hopwood v Hopwood
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 July 1856 |
| Date | 24 July 1856 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 1196
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 26 L. J. Ch. 292; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 747; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 549; 4 W. R. 787; 5 W. R. 331. Reversed in House of Lords, 7 H. L. C. 728; 11 E. R. 290; 29 L. J. Ch. 747; 5 Jur. (N. S.) 897. See 11 E. R. 290 for note.
[488] hopwood v. hopwood. July 23, 24, 1856. [S. C. 26 L. J. Ch. 292; 2 Jur. (N, S.) 747 ; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 549 ; 4 W. R. 787 ; 5 W. R. 331. Reversed in House of Lords, 7 H. L. C. 728 ; 11 E. R. 290; 29 L. J. Ch. 747 ; 5 Jur. (N. S.) 897. See 11 E. R. 290 for note.] In 1829 a testator directed his trustees to raise £5000, out of his real estate, for his son. In 1835, on his son's marriage, he covenanted to pay, at his death, £5000 to the trustees of his son's settlement. In 1850, after referring to the legacy of £5000 to his son, he directed his trustees to raise a further sum of £7000 for his son. Held, by the Master of the Rolls and the Lords Justices, that the first bequest had not been adeemed, and that the three sums of £5000, £5000, and £7000 were payable. In 1829 the testator, by his will, devised his real estate to trustees for 1000 years, upon trust to raise the sum of £5000 apiece for his two sons, Frank and Hervey, and for his daughter Mary, payable with interest as therein mentioned. In 1834 he made a codicil, whereby he revoked £5000 to hia daughter Mary as her portion, and having on her marriage paid into the hands of Lord Molyneux £2000, in part of the said portion, he thereby bequeathed the further sum of £3000 to his daughter Mary, to complete his original intention. In 1835, in contemplation of the marriage of his son Prank, the testator covenanted with the trustees of his son's marriage settlement to pay them, within twelve months, after hia decease, the sum of £5000, to be held upon trust for his son Frank, his wife and their children. In 1850 the testator made a second codicil, whereby, after reciting that he had by his will devised certain estates to trustees, upon trust to raise two sums of £5000 each for the benefit of his two sons Frank and Hervey, he thereby directed his trustees to raise two further sums of £7000 each, one of which two sums of £7000 each should be held by them upon the same trusts, and be applied in the same manner, for the benefit of his son Hervey Hopwood, absolutely, as in and by his will declared concerning his legacy of £5000, and one other of which two sums of £7000 each should be held by [489] them upon the trusts, and be applied in the same manner, for the benefit of his son Frank Hopwood, as in and by his will declared of and concerning his said legacy or sum of £5000 thereby given and bequeathed for his benefit. And, lastly, he thereby ratified and confirmed his will and the first codicil thereto, in all respects, save and except so far as the same will and codicil were thereby altered. In 1851 the testator made a third codicil, and thereby, after reciting that he had, since the date and execution of the said codicil, raised £5000, with which he had purchased for his son Hervey Hopwood a lieutenant-colonelcy in the Guards, and MBEJLV.MO. HOP WOOD V. HOP WOOD 1197 which sum might remain a charge on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coventry v Chichester
...Richardson v. Greese, (3 At. 65, 68); Ricliardsonv. Elphinstone (2 Ves. jun. 463); Bellasis v. Uthwatt (1 At. 426); Hopwood v. Hopivood (22 Beav. 488). 422 COVENTRY V. CHICHESTER 8H. &M.157. Mr. Giffarcl, Q.C., and Mr Speed, for Mrs. Paul. The rule is settled that the Court will not allow d......
- Fairweather v Fairweather
-
The Estate of Robert Ball Steele, Deceased; John Treacy Steele v Robert Laurence Ball Steele and Robert Montgomery Ball Steele
... ... Reference was made to Powys v. Mansfield ( 1 ), cited by Lord Kingsdown in Hopwood v. Hopwood ( 2 ); Earl of Mountcashell v. Smyth ( 3 ); Long v. Moore ( 4 ). Counsel for the residuary devisee relied upon Powys v. Mansfield ( ... ...
-
McClure v Evans
...Lambanle v. Peach (4 Drew. 553); Turton v. Lambarde (1 De Gex, F. & J. 495); Kirk v. Eddowes (3 Hare, 509); Hopwood v. Hopwood (22 Beav. 488; 7 H. of L. Gas. 728); Upton v. Prince (Ca. temp. Talbot, 71). Mr. Bedwell, in the same interest. [425] Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Karslake, for the Defendant......