Jones v Clough
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 July 1751 |
| Date | 22 July 1751 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 28 E.R. 234
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
jones Vi clough, July 22, 1751. At the Bolls.-Father tenant for life, and two sons, article to charge with a sum for younger children after father's death, as he by will duly executed should direct: he directs by will with two witnesses only : a good execution of the power, nothing passing from the father: otherwise if by owner of the estate.-(Query the accuracy of the Report in this case. See observations on this case, and the circumstances in the Supplement, p. 360, &c., and see 2 Ves. sen. 73, 76, 77.) On the marriage of Thomas Clough an estate (ante, 76) was settled to the use of himself for life, remainders in the common manner. When John the eldest son, and Thomas the younger, came of age, articles were entered into, reciting the settlement, and that" whereas there was thereby no provision or portion of maintenance for younger " children, though several were now living, to the intent therefore 300 may be raised, " Thomas the father, John the son and heir, and Thomas the younger, have taken it " into consideration and agree, that 300 be raised in and upon all or part of the premises " from and immediately after the death of Thomas the elder, and to be paid to -such " younger children in such manner and form, as he shall by his last will duly executed " direct and appoint; and in order to have the same effectually done and assured, " the two sons do covenant, grant, and promise and agree jointly and severally for them-" selves, their heirs, &c., that after father's death any part might be granted, mortgaged^ " or disposed of for raising the 300 to be paid as the last will and testament of Thomas " the elder should direct and appoint, and to no other use." [The father by will, attested only by two witnesses, particularly distributes this 300.- [366] John dying without issue, having suffered a recovery of part, Thomas became tenant in tail of the rest, and now insisted, that the provision, made for himself and the rest of the children, cannot take effect as not a proper execution of the power, the will not being such as would pass lands according to the statute of frauds, all the requisites of which were required by these articles, and the addition of duly equal to legally. Wagstaff v. Wagstaff, 2 Wil. 258. Longford v. Eyre, 1 Will. 740" (And see in the Duke of Marlborough v. Earl Godolphin, 2 Ves. sen. 73, 76, 77.) Sir John Strange. Where the owner of an estate in land...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowyer v Blair
...Doe d. Morgan v. MorganENR 6 B. & C. 512. Edwards v. BarnesENR 2 Bing. N. C. 252. Adamson v. Armitage 19 Ves. 419. Jones v. CloughENR 2 Ves. Sen. 365. daniel v. Uply Lache's R. 9, 39, 134; S. C. Sir W. Jones, 137, and Noy's R. 80. Anon 2 Keeling C. C. 6. Sug. on Pow. 121; Nannock v. Horton ......