Howe v Earl of Dartmouth. Howe v Countess of Aylesbury. [HIGH COURT of CHANCERY]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 May 1802 |
| Date | 22 May 1802 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 32 E.R. 56
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. G. 1 Wh. & T. L. C. [7th ed.] 68; See Spong v. Spong, 1827, 1 Yo. & Jer. 310; Alcock v. Sloper, 1833, 2 My. & K. 701; Clough v. Bond, 1838, 3 My. & Cr. 497; Pickering v. Pickering, 1839, 4 My. & Cr. 298; Hinves v. Hinves, 1844, 3 Hare, 611; Cafe v. Bent, 1845, 5 Hare, 34; Pickup v. Atkinson, 1846, 4 Hare, 628; Chambers v. Chambers, 1846, 15 Sim. 188; Prendergast v. Prendergast, 1850, 3 H. L. C. 220; Morgan v. Morgan, 1851, 14 Beav. 82; Meyer v. Simonsen. 1852, 5 De G. & Sm. 726; Baud v. Fardell, 1855, 7 De G. M. & G. 633; Cranley v. Dixon, 1857, 14 Beav. 517; Johnstone v. Moore, 1858, 27 L. J. Ch. 456. No application, Ibbotson v. Elam, 1865, L. R. 1 Eq. 192, Applied, Pidgeon v. Spencer, 1867, 16 L. T. 83. No application, Craven v. Craddock, 1869, 20 L. T. 640. Distinguished, In re Sewell's Estate, 1870, L. R. 11 Eq. 83. Followed, Tickner v. Old, 1874, L. R. 18 Eq. 426. No application, Greaves v. Smith, 1874, 29 L. T. 800. See Thursby v. Thursby, 1875, L. R. 19 Eq. 406; Lean v. Lean, 1875, 32 L. T. 306; Macdonald v. Irvine, 1877, 8 Ch. D. 102; In re Bagshaw's Trusts, 1877, 46 L. J. Ch. 571. Applied, In re Smith's Estate, 1879, 48 L. J. Ch. 207. No application, Gray v. Siggers, 1880, 15 Ch. D. 77. See In re Leonard, 1880, 43 L. T. 664; Robertson v. Broadbent, 1883, 8 App. Cas. 816. No application, In re Chancellor, 1884, 26 Ch. D. 42; In re Thomas, [1891] 3 Ch. 482. See, In re Gasquoine, [l894] 1 Ch. 476; In re Whitehead, [1894] 1 Ch. 682; In re Eaton, 1894 W. N. 95; In re Nicholson, 1894 W. N. 106; In re Hubbuck, [1896] 1 Ch. 758. Inapplicable, In re Pitcairn, [1896] 2 Ch. 199. Applied, In re Game, [1897] 1 Ch. 881. Questioned on point of absolute gift with limitation over, In re Bland, [1899] 2 Ch. 336. Inapplicable in case of settlement by deed, In re Van Straubenzee, [1901] 2 Ch. 779.
,. IowE v. Earl of dartmouth. howe v. Countess of aylesbury./ 'May 2'2d, 1802. CW ,. [S. G. 1 Wh. & T. L. C. [7th ed.] 68 ; See Spong v. Spong, 1827, 1 Yo. & Jer. 310 ; ' Alcockv. Sloper, 1833, 2 My. & K. 701 ; (Hough v. Bond, 1838, 3 My. & Cr. 497 ; Pickerings. Pickering, 1839, 4 My. &Cr. 298; Hinvex v. Hinves, 1844, 3 Hare, 611; Cafe v. Bent, 1845, 5 Hare, 34; Pickup v. Atkinson, 1846, 4 Hare, 628 ; Chambers v. Chambers, 1846, 15 Sim. 188; Prenderga.it v. Prendergast, 1850, H- IJ- ('- 22 ' Morgan v. Morgan, 1851, 14 Beav. 82 ; Meyer v. Simonxen. 852, 5 DeG. &Sm. 726; Baud v. Fardell, 1855, 7 DeG. M. &G. 633; Cranley v. . Dixon, 1857, 14 Beav. 517; Johns tone v. Afoore, 1858, 27 L. J. Ch. 456. 'No 3 fa? / CL^-if) 1 application, fbbotxonv. Elam, 1865, L. E. 1 Eq. 192, Applied, Pidgeon v. Spencer, r7 . ;~'1867, 16 L. T. 83. No application, Craven v. Craddock, 1869, 20 L. T. G40. If0 /Ck^y Distinguished, In re Sewell's Estate, 1870, L. E. 11 Eq. 83. Followed, Tickner toM St-3VsT .v- Old, 1874, L. E, 18 Eq. 426. No application, Greaves v. Smith, 1874, 29 L. T. , f- 800. See Thursby v. Thursby, 1875, L. R. 19 Eq. 406; Lean v. Lean, 1875, /CU. ^ òä 32 L. T. 306 ; Macdonald v. Irvine, 1877, 8 Ch. D. 102 ; In re Bagshaw's Trusts, 33^ ,1877, 46 L. J. Ch. 571. Applied, In re Smith's Estate, 1879, 48 L. J. Ch. 207. -1-4 if No application, Gray v. Siggers, 1880, 15 Ch. D. 77. See In re Leonard, 1880, 1 43 L. T. 664; Robertson v. Broadbent, 1883, 8 App. Caa. 8Lfi. No application, In re Chancellor, 1884, 26 Ch. D. 42 ; In re Thomas, [1891] 3 Ch. 482. See, InreGasquoine,\l8U4:] 1 Ch. 476; In re Whitehead, [1894] 1 Ch. 682 ; In re Eaton, | 1894] W. N. 95 ; In re Nicholson, [1894] W. N. 106 ; In re Hubbuck, [1896] 1 Ch. 758. Inapplicable, In re Pitcairn, [1896] 2 Ch. 199. Applied, In re Game, [1897] 1 Ch. 881. Questioned on point of absolute gift with limitation over, In re Bland, [1899] 2 Ch. 336. Inapplicable in case of settlement by deed, In re Van Straubenzee, [1901] 2 Ch. 779.] General rule, that, where personal property is bequeathed for life with remainders over, and not specifically, it is to be converted into the 3 per cents, subject in the case of a real security to an inquiry, whether it will be for the benefit of all 7 VES. JTTN. 138. HOWE V. DARTMOUTH (EARL of) 57 parties ; and the tenant for life is entitled only upon that principle. Bequest of personal estate not held specific merely from being combined with a devise of land. William Earl of fltrafford, by his will, dated the 25th of October 1774, gave to his wife Ann?., Countess of Straff ord, all his personal estate whatsoever (except the furniture of Wentworlh Castle) for her life, subject to the following out-payments and legacies. He also left to her all his houses, gardens, parks, and woods, and all his landed estates for her life ; and afterwards all his personal and landed estates to his eldest sister Lady Ann Conolly, for her life ; and then to the eldest son of (ieorge Byng, Esquire ; and afterwards to his second, third, or any later sons he may have by the testator's niece Mrs. Byng ; and then to the eldest son and other sons successively of the Earl of Buckingham by his niece Caroline : but all of them to be subject to the following out-payments and legacies. He left his wife the sum of £15,000 to dispose of for ever as she pleases, and the value of £500 in furniture in Wentworth Castle, of whatever sort she chooses ; else the whole furniture to be her's, if she meets with any difficulty in [138] this disposition. He gave several legacies and annuities ; and declared, he would have all his debts paid ; and gave all his servant's a year's wages. The testator died on the 10th of March 17'.) I. Anne, Countess of Straffurd, died in his life, on the 9th of February 17H5. Lady Anne ('onolly filed a bill for an account of the personal estate, &c. By a decree, made at the Bolls on the 17th of May 1793, the usual accounts were directed ; and it was declared, that the Plaintiff would be entitled to the interest of the clear residue of the testator's personal estate during her life ; and an inquiry was directed, who were the next of kiti of the testator at the, time of his death. The Master's Report, dated the 7th of March 179(1, stated the account of the personal estate; part of which consisted of the following stocks and annuities, standing in the testator's name at his death : ^ £4.'WO Bank Stock. ,Jiii5'?2vpe/' annum, Long Annuities. £750 per annum Short Annuities. Under orders made in the cause tho sums of £15,000 and £4000 had been paid in by the executors ; and laid out in 3 per cent. Consolidated Bank Annuities. By a decretal order, made on the 7th of May 179(5, the balance of the personal estate in the hands of the executors, and of the interest, &c., was ordered to be paid into the Bank ; and that the executors should transfer the £4320 Bank Stock, the £9572 per annum Long Annuities, and £750 per annum Short Annuities, to the Accountant General, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HM Revenue and Customs v Trustees of the Peter Clay Discretionary Trust
...the Court's long-established practice, a sale would be likely to be directed “to give everyone an equal chance”– Howe v Lord Dartmouth (1802) 7 Ves Jun 137 at 148–149. One might take as another example of the need for balance between conflicting interests a trust where its property included......
-
Foo Jee Seng v Foo Jhee Tuang
...Re [1975] Ch 25 (distd) Hayward v Hayward (1974) 237 EG 577 (refd) Hodges, Re (1878) 7 Ch D 754 (refd) Howe v Earl of Dartmouth (1802) 7 Ves Jun 137; 32 ER 56 (refd) Hriczu v Mackey Estate [2011] BCSC 454 (refd) Jackson v Jackson [1971] 1 WLR 1539 (refd) Jones v Challenger [1961] 1 QB 176 (......
-
Wong v Morgan Trust Company of the Bahamas Ltd
...bearing in mind my earlier discussion of capital and income (plus special equitable apportionment rules e.g. in Howe v. Dartmouth (1802) 7 Ves Jun 137 and Re Earl of Chesterfield's Trust (1883) 24 Ch D 643) and the fact that the Chief Justice had in mind submissions to her from counsel for ......
-
Lottman and Teichberg v. Stanford, Ungerman, Lottman, (1980) 31 N.R. 1 (SCC)
...was applicable only to personalty and refused to extend it to real property. Cases Noticed: Howe v. Lord Dartmouth (1802), 7 Ves. Jr. 137; 32 E.R. 56, dist. [para. 1]. Royal Trust Company v. McMurray and Crawford, [1955] S.C.R. 184, appld. [para. 1]. In re Earl of Chesterfield's Trusts (188......
-
THE RATIONALISATION OF DIRECTORS’ DUTIES IN SINGAPORE
...the directors to go to trial. See Robert Stevens, “The Proper Scope of Knowing Receipt”[2004] LMCLQ 421. 100 Howe v Earl of Dartmouth (1802) 7 Ves Jun 137; 32 ER 56. 101 Ultraframe UK Ltd v Fielding [2004] RPC 24 at [39] per Waller LJ. Directors of joint stock companies were considered trus......