Horde v The Earl of Suffolk
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 August 1833 |
| Date | 05 August 1833 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 39 E.R. 866
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See cases collected in note to Loscombe v. Wintringham, 1850, 13 Beav., 89. Followed, In re Lea, 1887, 34 Ch. D., 535.
[59] horde v. the earl of suffolk. Rolls. July 27, August 5, 1833, [See cases collected in note to Loscombe v. Wintringham, 1850, 13 Beav., 89. Followed, In re Lea, 1887, 34 Ch. D., 535.] Where annual sums were bequeathed to persons, to be distributed in charity, at the discretion of the legatees, either to private individuals or public institutions, the :3MY. &K.80. HOKDE V. THE EARL OF SUFFOLK 867 Court declared that the legacies did not fail, but that a scheme was unnecessary ; leaving any of the parties at liberty to apply, as there might be occasion. The will of Ann Southern, after bequeathing her worldly property of every kind .and description to the Rev. George Bissett (whom she appointed her sole executor), in trust for the purposes thereinafter mentioned, directed her executor to pay certain pecuniary legacies, and, among others, one of 100 to Caroline Anne Horde, and then proceeded as follows :-" In the next place I desire that, out of the residue of my property, my said executor will pay, or cause to be paid, to the aforesaid Caroline Anne Horde, over and above her said legacy, the sum of 180 annually during the term of her natural life, to be by her distributed in charity according to her own discretion and judgment, either to private individuals or public institutions, in such sum or sums, way and manner, as she shall from time to time choose, without limitation or control from any person whomsoever. Next I desire that my said -executor will pay, or cause to be paid, to Amelia Wrenford, now living at Stow in Gloucestershire, the sum of 120 annually for the term of her natural life, for her own use and benefit. All the remainder of my property now vested, or hereafter to be vested in the public funds (and it is my will that all the money I may possess should be so vested in the public funds), I desire that my said executor will pay or transfer, or cause to be paid or transferred, unto the Right Honourable Ladies Elizabeth Howard, Julia Catharine Howard, and Jane Elizabeth Howard, the three eldest -daughters of the Right Honourable Thomas, Earl of Suffolk and Berkshire, to be by them the said ladies, and the survivors and survivor of them, and the executors, administrators, [60] and assigns of such survivor, and his, her, or their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v DELANEY. [Exchequer.]
...Amb. 651. Cocks v. MannersELR L. R. 12 Eq. 585. Waldo v. Caley 16 Ves. 206. Johnston v. SwannUNK 3 Mad. 457. Horde v. Earl of SuffolkENR 2 My. & K. 59. Ommanney v. Butcher Tur. & Rus. 260. Durour v. MotteuxENR 1 Ves. Sen. 320. Morice v. Bishop of Durham 9 Ves. 406; 10 Ves. 542. Michels Trus......
- Tan Chin Ngoh v Tan Chin Teat, Tan Chin Hean and Another
-
Ellis v Selby
...were no words there to negative a liability to account. The cases of Waldo v. Caley (16. Ves. 206), and Horde v. The Earl of Suffolk (2 Mylne & Keen, 59), prove that if the present bequest is to be applied to charity, it may be so applied at the absolute 3 MY. * CE. a ELLIS V. SELBY 387 òdi......
-
Baker v Sutton
...that private charity was an object too indefinite to enable the Court to carry the trust into execution. Horde v. The Earl of Suffolk (2 Mylne & Keen, 59) may seem somewhat inconsistent with this decision; for there the [229] testatrix bequeathed sums to be distributed annually in charities......