Julia Langston, an Infant, by her next Friend; Maria Sarah Langston; Charles Barter the Elder, and Wife; and Charles Barter the Younger, an Infant, by his next Friend, - Appellants; James Haughton Langston, Sir Chas. Morice Pole, Bart., and Haughton Farmer Okeover, - Respondents
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 6 E.R. 1128
FROM THE COURT OF CHANCERY.
Mews' Dig. xv. 707, 1846, 1847; S.C. 8 Bli. N.S. 167; and, in Court below, sub nom. Langston v. Pole, 9 D. and R. 298; 5 Bing. 228; Taml. 119. Discussed and explained in Grant v. Grant, 1875, L.R. 5 C.P. 735; and see In re Thomson's Trusts, 1870, L.R. 11 Eq. 148. Distinguished in Locke v. Dunlop, 1888, 39 Ch. D. 387.
[134] . APPEAL from the court of chancery. JULIA LANGSTON, an Infant, by her next Friend; MARIA SARAH LANGSTON; CHARLES BARTER the Elder, and Wife; and CHARLES BARTER the Younger, an Infant, by his next Friend,-Appellants; JAMES HAUGHTON LANGSTON, Sir CHAS. MORICE POLE, Bart., and HAUGHTON FARMER OKEOYER,-Respondents. [Mews' Dig. xv. 707, 1846, 1847; S.C. 8 Bli. N.S. 167; and, in Court below, sub nom. Langston v. Pule, 9 D. and R. 298; 5 Bing. 228; Tainl. 119. Discussed and explained in Grant v. Grant, 1875, L.R. 5 C.P. 735; and see In re Thomson's Trusts, 1870, L.R. 11 E.q. 148. Distinguished in Locke v. Dunlop, 1888, 39 Ch. D. 387.] J. L. devised his manors and hereditaments to trustees upon trust to convey the same to the use of J. H. L. (his eldest son) for life; with remainder to trustees to preserve contingent remainders; with remainder to the use of the second, third, fourth, filth, and all and every other the son and sons of the body of J. H. L., severally and successively in seniority of age and priority of birth, in tail male; remainder to the use of devisor's second and other sons successively in tail male; remainder to the use of J. H. L.'s first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and all and very other daughter and daughters successively, in tail general; remainder to the use of devisor's eldest daughter, M. S. L. for life; remainder to trustees to preserve, etc.; remainder to the use of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and all and every other son of M. S. L. successively, in tail male; remainder to her first, second and other daughters successively, in tail general; with divers other like remainders to the devisor's other daughters and their issue, and various intermediate terms in trust. There was no express limitation to J. H. L.'s first son, nor any provision for him made or referred to in the will; but the trust of the first term directed to be contained in the settlement to be made by the trustees was declared to be, in case there should lie no son of J. H. L., for raising portions for his daughters, except an eldest or only daughter; and the trusts of the other terms were to be for raising por-[195]-tions for the younger children of the successive tenants * Mich. 27 Geo. 2. A question having been started, on occasion of the late Act of Parliament concerning the naturalization of the Jews, which Act was repealed this session, whether Jews are entitled to purchase and hold lands in England, Lord Temple, after the repeal of the Act, moved in the House of Lords that some method might be taken to ascertain this question, and that for this purpose the Judges might be desired to attend and give their opinions upon it; which was opposed, and the molio.i rejected, for many reasons, but particularly because the Judges are not obliged to give their opinions to the House upon such extra-judicial questions, and where no bill is depending: and the Duke of Argyle mentioned a case in Queen Anne's time, where such a question being put to the Judges, Lord Chief Justice Holt, in the name of himself arid the rest, insisted that they were not obliged to give their opinions on any such question; and his objections thereto were allowed by the House.-Mr. Coxe's MSS. E. E. 1128 langston v. langston [1834] n clark & for life, in cdse there should be no issue of the body of J. H. L.; and a power was directed by the devisor to be inserted in the Settlement to enable J. H. L to charge the devised estates with portions for his children other them an eldest or only son. Held, that the first son of J. H. L. was entitled to have an estate tail in the devised manors and hereditaments, expectant on the death of his father, limited to him in the conveyance directed to be made fey the trustees. The decree under appeal in this case was m%de in a suit instituted for the purpose of establishing a will, which, as far as it is material to' set it forth here, was to the following effect: - John Langston, late of Sarsden House, in the county of Oxford, esquire, being seised in fee of considerable estates in Middlesex and Oxfordshire, and being also seised to him and his heirs of several copyhold estates in the same counties, duly made and published his will in writing, bearing date the 28th. of July 1801, and signed and attested in the manner by law required to pass freehold estates; and he thereby devised " all his freehold and copyhold manors, messuages, farms, lands, tenements, tithes and hereditaments, situate in the said several counties, or elsewhere in England, (except his shares in the New River Company), unto J. P. Bastard, esquire, J. W. Hope, esquire, and C. M. Pole, esquire, (now Sir Charles Morioe Pole, bart. one of the Respondents), their heirs and assigns, upon trust during the minority of the testator's son, the Respondent James Haughton Langston, (who was then about the age of five years,) to receive the rents and profits thereof, and to dispose of the same for the purposes in the said will mentioned: And upon this further trust, that when the said J. H. Langston should attain the age [196] of 21 years the said trustees or the survivors or survivor of them, or the heirs or assigns of such survivor, should by good and sufficient conveyances and assurances in the law, convey, settle and assure the same manors, messuages, etc. and hereditaments, in such manner as that the same should continue and be for and upon the several uses, trusts and purposes, and subject to the several powers, etc. and declarations therein and partly hereinafter mentioned and declared of and concerning the same, or such of them as should be then subsisting or capable of taking effect, (that is to say): To the use of the said testator's said son J. H. Langston, for life; and from and after the determination of that estate, to the use of trustees (to be named in such settlement) and their heirs, in trust to preserve the contingent uses and estates to be thereinafter limited; with remainder to the use of the second, third, fourth, fifth, and all and every other the son and sons r f the body of the said J. H. Langston, lawfully to be begotten, severally, successively, and in remainder one after another as they and every of them should be in seniority of age and priority of birth, and the several and respective heirs male of the body and bodies of all and every such son and sons lawfully issuing; the elder of such sons and the heirs male of his body to be always preferred and to take before the younger of such son and sons, aiid the heirs male of his and their body and bodies issuing." The question for decision was whether, under the terms of this limitation, the first son of James Haughton Langston, who, for the purpose of raising the question, was supposed to have two sons, took any and what estate in the devised manors and hereditaments. [197] The will continued, after the above limitation, " With remainder to the use of other trustees to' be named in the said settlement, their executors, administra tors and assigns, for the term of 500 years, upon the trusts and for the intents and purposes thereinafter mentioned; with remainder to the use of the first," second, third, fourth, fifth, and all and every other the daughter and daughters of the body of the said J. H. Langston severally, successively and in remainder, in tail general ; and in default of such issue, to the use of other trustees to be named in the said settlement for 99 years, upon the trusts thereinafter mentioned; with remainder to the use of the testator's eldest daughter, the Appellant Maria Sarah Langston, for life, with remainder to trustees to preserve, etc.; with remainder to the use of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and all and every other the son and sons of the testator's said daughter, severally and successively and in remainder in tail male; and for default of such issue, to the use of other trustees to be named in the said H.L. vi. 1129 36 II CLABK & FINNELLY. LANGSTON V. LANGSTON [183 4] settlement for 600 years, upon trusts after mentioned; with remainder to the use of teetator's said daughter's first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and all and every other her daughter and daughters, severally, successively and in remainder in tail general." The testator, after directing by his said will like limitations in remainder to be contained in the said executory settlement for each of his four younger daughters, Elizabeth Catherine, Caroline, Agatha Maria Sophia and Henrietta Maria, for life, severally and successively, (with remainders interposed to trustees to preserve, etc.), with like remainders in tail male and tail general to their respective children, with remainder to his sixth and other daughters thereafter to be born, successively in tail general, with ultimate [198] remainder to his sister, Mrs. Cazalet, in fee, proceeded to direct the trusts of the above-mentioned terms of 500 years and 99 years and 600 years, and also of five other terms of 700 years, 800 years, 900 years, 1000 years and 1500 years, which he by his said will directed to be severally interposed, iu the settlement to be executed by his said trustees, between the said limitations in remainder to his said daughters and sister respectively. And as to the said term of 500, the testator directed that the same should be limited...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation
-
Monypenny v Dering
...& E. 340), Doe d. Burrin v. Chorlton (1 M. & G. 429, 1 Scott, N. R. 290), Nicholl v. Nicholl (2 W. Bla. 1159), Langston v. Langston (2 Clark & Fin. 194), Pitt v. Jackson (2 Bro. C. C. 51), Smith v. Lord Camelford (2 Ves. jun. 698, 711), Brudenell v. Elwes (1 East, 450), Stackpoole v. Siackp......
-
An v Barclays Private Bank & Trust (Cayman) Ltd
...28 E.R. 282, referred to. (20) Kent, ReUNK(1982), 139 D.L.R. (3d) 318, distinguished. (21) Langston v. Langston(1834), 2 H.L. Cas. 194; 6 E.R. 1128, considered. (22) Leong v. Chye (Lim Beng), [1955] A.C. 648; [1955] All E.R. 903, applied. (23) Lloyd v. BrantonENR(1817), 3 Mer. 108; 17 R.R. ......
-
Rye v Rye
...Key v. KeyENR 4 De G. M. & G. 73. Woodcock v. The Duke of Dorset 3 Br. C. C. 569. Hope v. Clifden 6 Ves. 499. Langston v. LangstonENR 2 Cl. & Fin. 194. Parker v. TootalENR 11 H. L. C. 143. Jackson v. DoverENR 2 H. & M. 209. In re Daniel's SettlementELR 1 Ch. D. 375. Sweeting v. PrideauxELR ......