Hubert v Parsons
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 April 1751 |
| Date | 29 April 1751 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 28 E.R. 169
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
VES. SEN. 262. HUBERT V. PARSONS 169 hubert v. parsons, April 29, 1751. Trust " to raise " £5000 portion " and pay it " to such younger child as the father should appoint; for "want of appointment to the younger children at twenty-one, with interest for their maintenance (see 2 Ves. sen. 263, 264, and Batsford v. Kebbell, 3 Ves. 363), &c., in the meantime, &c., &c. The only younger child died at two years old. Held not to be vested in him, so as to be claimed by the father as his representative. (See in Lord Teynham v, Webb, 2 Ves. sen. 198, 209, and Supplement, p. 325.) Portions by will governed by rules from the civil law, not applicable to a deed. {See 2 Ves. sen. 262, 263 ; et vide 2 Ves. sen. 207, and 2 Cox, P. W. 612, note. Vide also, Bolger v. Mackell, 5 Ves. 509.)-[Supplement, 337.] By marriage-articles trustees were to pay the dividends and produce of £9000 stock to Philip Hubert for life, and from and after his decease his wife, if she survived him, should have it for her life ; and on trust by mortgage or sale, in case of more than one child, of said marriage, to raise £5000 and pay it to such child, not being an eldest son, at such time, and in such manner and proportion, and with such restriction, as the said Philip Hubert in his life or by will should direct, limit and appoint: for want of appointment to pay the same to such younger son or sons, daughter or daughters, at twenty-one; and till such share or shares of younger son or sons, daughter or daughters, become payable, the interest should be paid toward maintenance and education; if any of these younger child or children died before payable it should survive, except to the eldest son ; provided that, if no appointment of the payment of the portions by the father, the trustees should have power to raise part of this money, or the whole if they thought necessary, for advancement of that younger child, as it wanted it: and subject only to the drawing out these provisions, all was given and settled on the eldest son : if no issue of the marriage then in trust for Philip Hubert, his executors, administrators, and assigns. At death of the mother there were only two sons; the youngest died when but two years old; the father had made no appointment, and brought this bill claiming the £5000 as administrator and representative to the deceased younger child : for though the time of raising was not yet come, it was absolutely vested in that child, and transmissible; as after the mother's death there could be no other. The question is not on the time of payment, but on the penning of the deed, whether it vested or not *2 No act could take from the father the benefit of the whole produce during his life; yet as to the children the reversionary interest was to vest in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Herring-Cooper v Herring-Cooper
-
Remnant v Hood
...v. Scott (1 H. Lds. Ca. 43); Lard Te.ynhum v. Webb (2 Ves. sen. 198); Woodcock v. Duke of Dorset (3 Bro. C. C. 568); Hubert v. Pars/am (2 Ves. sen. 261); Lord Rivers v. Derby (2 Veruon, 72); lioohe v. Rooke, (2 Eden, 8) were cited. Mr. White, in reply. June 28. the master of the eolls [Sir ......
-
Davis v Huguenin
...parent's life: Pmdd v. Poiilet (1 Veru. 204, 321), Eruen v. Bruen (2 Vejrn. 439), Jennings v. Looks (2 P. Wms. 276), Hubert v. Parsons (2 Ves. sen. 261), Wan- v. Wm-v (Free. Ch. 213), Teynham v. Webb (2 Ves. sen. 197, 209). Then how could Thomas Davies, who died at the age of one month, in ......
-
The Act of 11 & 12 Vic. c. 68, and the Trusts of the Settlement of WILLIAM ORME, Esq.
...Bull v. PritchardENR 5 Hare, 567. Saunders v. VautierENR Cr. & Ph. 240. Stephens v. Frost 2 Y. & Col. Exch. 306. Hubert v. ParsonsENR 2 Ves. Sen. 261. 1 M'N. & G. 354. Stephens v. Frost 2 Y. & Col. Exch. 302. Vize v. Stoney 1 Dr. & War. 350. Davies v. FisherENR 5 Beav. 207. Davies v. Fisher......