Johnson v Freeth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 March 1836 |
| Date | 02 March 1836 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 47 E.R. 197
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
S. C. 6 Sim. 423 (n); 5 L. J. Ch. 143.
vice-chancellor's court. [16] johnson v. freeth. March 2, 1836. [S. C. 6 Sim. 423 (n.); 5 L. J. Ch. 143.] The following question came before the Court on demurrer :-A testator, G. Grant, bequeathed to Elizabeth Grant and her assigns, for and during the term of her natural life, an annuity of 200, clear of all deductions (the said annuity to be paid by half-yearly payments), for her sole and separate use and benefit, free from, the debts or engagements of any husband with whom she might intermarry; and the testator declared, that her receipts [17] alone, notwithstanding her coverture, or of the person or persons to whom she should, from time to time, but not by way of anticipation, appoint the same, should be the only sufficient discharges. The two defendants were the trustees of the will. After the death of the testator, Elizabeth Cox married Charles Boniface, but no settlement was made on the marriage. Charles Boniface and his wife, by indentures, granted and appointed unto the Plaintiff, J. H. Johnson, his executors, administrators, and assigns, during the life of the said Elizabeth Boniface, an annuity of .61, 16s. Id. to be charged upon and payable out of the said sum of JE200; and the said C. Boniface and Elizabeth his wife, appointed and assigned unto the said J. H. Johnson, his executors, administrators and assigns, the said sum of 200, during the life of the said Elizabeth Boniface, upon trust to permit Elizabeth Boniface to receive the annuity of 200, until default in payment of the said annuity of 61, 16s. Id. and all arrears and costs, and to pay the surplus to Elizabeth Boniface. The question was, whether the clause against anticipation took effect on the marriage, or whether it was altogether inoperative at the time the wife took, there being no marriage then in contemplation, and there being no limitation over in case of anticipation, It was contended that this point had never been decided, and that it had only been brought before the Court on petition; and it was also contended that the clause against anticipation might be engrafted on the gift to the separate use. the vice-chancellor [Sir Lancelot Shadwell], during the argument, said whatever might have been the law in Parkes v. fPTiite, it appeared that the law had undergone a change: he had forgotten that the case of Newton v. Eecul had never been before him, till...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davenport v Whitmore
...Davenport and Whitmore S. C. Donnelly, 166; 8 Sim. 251. vice-chancellor's court. [195] davenport v. whitmore. Jan. 24, 18:57. [S. C. Donnelly, 16(5; 8 Sim. 251.] The Court will, under special Circumstances, such as the Illness of a Master, dispense with the strict Observance of the General ......
-
Putting religious symbolism in context: a linguistic critique of the endorsement test.
...introduces the endorsement test through a summary of the two principal Supreme Court cases dealing with religious symbols, Lynch v. Donnelly (16) and County of Allegheny v. ACLU, (17) as well as of Capitol Square Review & Advisory Board v. Pinette, (18) a case involving a religious symb......