John Dakin Gaskell, an Infant-Plaintiff. Holbrook Gaskell, and Ann his Wife, William Gaskell, Edward Gaskell, Betty Gaskell, Samuel Gaskell, Ann Gaskell the Younger, Elizabeth Gaskell, and Robert Gaskell-Defendants
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 July 1828 |
| Date | 10 July 1828 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 148 E.R. 1017
EXCH. CH. IN EQ.
Referred to, Hughes v. Stubbs, 1842, 1 Hare, 479; Kekewich v. Manning, 1851, 1 De G. M. & G. 201.
john dakin gaskell, an Infant-Plaintiff'. holbrook gaskell, and ann his Wife, willfam gaskell, edward gaskell, bbtty gaskell, samuel gaskell, ann gaskell the Younger, elizabeth gaskell, and hubert gaskell -Defendants. Exch. Ch. in Eq. Sittings after Term. July 5, 10, 1828.-Where A., having certain funds standing to his credit at his bankers, by letter, directed them to carry some parts of such funds to the account of certain persons, as trustees for his wife, and, after her decease, for his son; and other parts thereof to the account of certain persons, as trustees for his son ; and such sums were accordingly carried over by the bankers to the account of such persons in their books, and the dividends were from time to time carried to the same accounts; but the testator never communicated the facts to the trustees : and there was some evidence that the testator had directed the transfers under an impression that he should be able, by that means, to evade the legacy duty, and that he bad shewn an intention to exercise some acts of ownership over the funds : the Court held, that the appropriations were void, and that the testator might at any time have revoked them. [Beferred to, Hughes v. Stubbx, 1842, 1 Hare, 479; KekeuAch v. Manning, 1851, 1 DeG. M. &G. 201.] Koger Gaskell, by his will, dated 13th February, 1824, duly executed and attested to pass real estates, after charging his real and personal estates with the payment of his debts, funeral and testamentary expenses, gave and bequeathed to his wife, the defendant, Betty Gaskell, the use of all his household goods and furniture, plate, linen, and china, for her life, if she should so long continue his widow, and after her death or marriage the same were to be considered part of the residue of his personal estate. And the testator bequeathed to the said Betty Gaskell, during her life and widowhood, a yearly rent charge of 201., charged upon the premises therein mentioned ; and he bequeathed to the plaintiff the sum of 15001. if he should attain the age of twenty-one years. And the said testator thereby gave and devised all his real estates, [503] with their appurtenances, to his sons, Thomas Biggin Gaskell, deceased, and the plaintiff, and their respective heirs and assigns, for ever, as tenants in common, subject to the said annual sum of 201. And after reciting that by an indenture dated the 14th April, 1821, and made, or expressed to be made, between the said Betty Gaskell, of the first part; the said testator, of the second part; and the said Thomas Biggin Gaskeli, and James Wagstaff, gentleman, of the third part; (being the settlement executed previously to the marriage of the said testator with the said Betty Gaskell, then Betty Wagstaff) the sum of 20001. stock or capital in the Navy 51. per cent. Annuities, was assigned to the said Thomas Biggin Gaskell and James Wagstaff, their executors, administrators, and assigns, upon the trust therein mentioned. The 1018 (iASKBLL V. GASKELL 2 Y. & J. 504. said testator did thereby, pursuant to, and by force and virtue, and in exercise and execution of the power or authority to him for that purpose given or reserved by the said indenture of settlement, direct, limit, and appoint, that, from and after the decease of the said Betty Gaskell, the said sum of '20001., and the stocks, funds, and securities on which the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Byrnes v Kendle
...18th ed (2008) at 95 [4–23]. 20 (1850) 13 Beav 78; [ 51 ER 30]. 21 Similar facts existed in Gaskell v Gaskell (1828) 2 Y & J 502 [ 148 ER 1017], footnoted in the passage from Lewin. The settlor's purpose was to avoid estate duty and the creation of the trust was not communicated to the ap......
-
Byrnes v Kendle
...18th ed (2008) at 95 [4–23]. 20 (1850) 13 Beav 78; [ 51 ER 30]. 21 Similar facts existed in Gaskell v Gaskell (1828) 2 Y & J 502 [ 148 ER 1017], footnoted in the passage from Lewin. The settlor's purpose was to avoid estate duty and the creation of the trust was not communicated to the ap......
- ARSP Palaniappa Chettiar; NN Sockalingam Chettiar
-
Talbot v Cody
...(29) 1 Beay. 426. (10) 2 H. L. C. 28. (30) 1 Beay. 605. (11) 5 Ves. 79. (31) 3 Drew. 335. (12) 2 Ves. Sen. 170. (32) 14 Sim. 186. (13) 2 Y. & J. 502. (33) 3 Exch. 143. (14) 2 Swanst. 92. (34) 1 Atk. 270. (15) L. It. 18 Eq. 11. (35) 4 K. & J. 204. 140 THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. Rolls. Mews v.......