Johnson v Ball
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 December 1851 |
| Date | 08 December 1851 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 64 E.R. 1029
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 21 L. J. Ch. 210; 16 Jur. 538. See In re Fleetwood, 1880, 15 Ch. D. 603; In re Boyes, 1884, 26 Ch. D. 535; In re Hetley [1902], 2 Ch. 869.
[85] johnson v. ball. Dec. 3, 8, 1851. [S. C. 21 L. J. Ch. 210; 16 Jur. 538. See In re Fleet-wood, 1880, 15 Ch. D. 603; .In re Boyes, 1884, 26 Ch. D. 535; In.re Hetley [1902], 2 Ch. 869.] A testator gave a policy of assurance to two trustees " to hold the same upon uses appointed by letter signed by them and myself." No such letter existed at the date of the will, but the testator had previously asked the trustees, who had (Consented, to accept the bequest for the benefit of persons and objects then named by the testator. Long after the date of his will the testator wrote a letter, addressed to his executors, stating that he had, by his will, left the policy to the two trustees, to be delivered up to them for the purposes they had agreed to carry out. At the same time the testator signed an unattested memorandum, declaring the trusts on which the trustees were to hold the policy given to them by his 1030 JOHNSON V. BALL , 5DEG.&SM. 86. will. The trustees retained the letter and the memorandum until after the testator's death. Upon a claim by one of the persons beneficially interested under the memorandum, against the executors and trustees : Held, that the testator could not prospectively create for himself a power to dispose of property by an instrument not duly executed as a will; and that the letter would not operate as a gift inter viws ; and that the trustees held the proceeds of the policy in trust for the residuary legatees under the testator's will. Mr. George Eutter Lamb cohabited with Mrs. Catherine Johnson for more than forty years before his death, and he had by her five children, namely, Caroline Manners, Jane Ball, Catherine Johnson and Ellen Dennis, and Mary Ball, the deceased mother of Henry Ball, all of whom he acknowledged and treated as his children; and he always maintained Mrs. Johnson and her children. Mr. Lamb determined to make a provision for Mrs. Johnson and her four surviving children, and for Henry Ball, her grandson, to take effect after his death, and to settle upon them a policy of assurance for 2000 on his own life, effected in the Equitable Assurance Office; and, previously to the marriage of Mr. John Ball with the deceased daughter, Mary Ball, Mr. Lamb informed Mr. John Ball that be intended to provide for Mrs. Johnson and her children by means of the policy. And afterwards, in the month of July 1843, Mr. Lamb informed Mr. Ball and Mr. Manners, the husband of another of the children, that he was about to make his will, and that he intended to leave the policy upon trust for Mrs. Johnson and her child-[86]-ren, and he asked them to act as trustees for the children, which they consented to do. Mr. Lamb duly made his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blackwell and another v Blackwell and Others
...an attested signature was not required. After the Wills Act the cases proceed in the same channel. 22 In the case of ( Johnson v. Ball 5 D.J. & S., p. 85), a testator determined to settle upon his mistress and illegitimate children a policy of insurance for £2,000, and by his will of the 21......
-
O'Brien v Condon
...Ir. 478. Hetley v. HetleyELR [1902] 2 Ch. 866. In re FleetwoodELR 15 Ch. D. 594. In re HuxtableELR [1902] 2 Ch. 793. Johnson v. BallENR 5 De G. & Sm. 85. Moss v. CooperENR 1 J. & H. 352, 366. M'Cormick v. GroganELR L. R. 4 H. L. 82. Reid v. Atkinson I. R. 5 Eq. 162, 373. Riordan v. Banon I.......
-
Tam Mei Kam v Hsbc International Trustee Ltd And Others
...or contemporaneous communications. That would render the half-secret trust invalid: Re Jones [1942] Ch 328; see also Johnson v Ball 5De G & Sm 85. 257. The second reason why the half-secret trust issue arises is this. As described, a half-secret trust is a supposed exception to the rule aga......
-
Morrison v M'Ferran
...496. In King's EstateUNK 21 L. R. Ir. 273. In re BoyesELR 26 Ch. D. 531. Irvine v. SullivanELR L. R. 8 Eq. 673. Johnson v. BallENR 5 De G. & Sm. 85. King v. DenisonENR 1 V. & B. 260. M'Cormick v. Grogan L. R> 4 H. L. 82. Moos v. CooperENR 1 J. & H. 352. Mullen v. BowmanENR 1 Coll. 197. Re F......