Kiddill v Farnell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 1857 |
| Date | 11 February 1857 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 65 E.R. 723
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 26 L. J. Ch. 818; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 786; 5 W. R. 324, 793.
[428] kiddill v. farnell. Feb. 11, 1857. [S. C. 26 L. J. Ch. 818; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 786; 5 W. E. 324, 793.] Under a power of attorney, by the owner of stock in the public funds, the transfer was not made till three days after the death of the grantor, the power according to the usual form of Bank of England powers of attorney containing a clause to make 724 KIDDILL V. FARNELL 3 SM. & GIFF. 429. it valid, notwithstanding the death of the grantor before the transfer was made. The legal interest in the stock was held to be validly transferred, and there being clear evidence that the object of the transfer was to give the beneficial interest. Held, that there was no resulting trust in favour of the next of kin or representatives of the grantor. Mary Rose Kiddill, on the 21st July 1840, being possessed of £1370, 2s. 8d. New 3J per cent, annuities, signed, executed and delivered to her sister, Elizabeth Rose Kiddill, with whom she had resided from childhood, a power of attorney in the form issued by the bank for the transfer of such sum of stock into the name of the said Elizabeth Rose Kiddill. At the date of the execution of the power Mary Rose Kiddill was seriously ill, and died the same day intestate. No letters of administration were ever taken out of her estate. The power of attorney was exercised on the 23d of July (being two days after the death of Mary R. Kiddill), whereby the £1370, 2s. 8d. New 3J per cent, stock was transferred into the name of Elizabeth Rose Kiddill; the power of attorney was in the usual form. Elizabeth Rose Kiddill died on the 25th September 1853, having given by her will several pecuniary legacies, and a sum of £800, which was given in the first place to John Kiddill Howard, and in case he died under 21 to the Plaintiff. Besides other personal estate, the testatrix at her decease had the sum of £2257, 5s. 2d. New 3J per cent, stock standing in her name on the books of the Bank of England. She appointed as executors of her .will James Thomas Farnell and John Newman Waite the younger, who duly proved the same. John Kiddill Howard died under 21, on the 23d of September 1855, by which event the Plaintiff became entitled to the legacy of £800. He accordingly applied to the executors for payment, which they refused. They had pre-[429]-viously delivered to him an account which contained the following memorandum :- " A sum of £2257, 5s. 2d. is now standing in the names of the executors of Miss Kiddill, of which a sum equivalent to the value of £800 sterling is held in trust for James Kiddill Howard, as directed by the will of Miss Kiddill, and the residue belongs to Mr. James Kiddill (the Plaintiff) as residuary legatee under her will, subject to the adjustment of the claim made by Samuel Hunt." Samuel Hunt was one of the three next of kin in equal degree of Mary Rose Kiddill, living at her decease. The Plaintiff, on the llth of February 1856, filed this bill against Samuel Hunt and the executors of Elizabeth Rose Kiddill, praying...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pearl v Deacon
...Reports Citation: 44 E.R. 802 BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES. Pearl and Deacon S. C. 24 Beav. 186; 26 L. J. Ch. 761; 3 Jur. (N. S.), 1187; 5 W. R. 793. See Campbell v. Rothwell, 1877, 47 L. J. Q. B. 146; Kinnaird v. Webster, 1878, 10 Ch. D. 144; Duncan v. North and South Wales Bank, 1880, 6 App.......
-
Fyfe v Arbuthnot
...Reports Citation: 44 E.R. 780 BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR. Fyfe and Arbuthnot S. C. 3 Sm. & G. 547; 26 L. J. Ch. 646; 3 Jur. (N. S.), 651; 5 W. R. 793. See In re Clarke, 1887, 35 Ch. D. 113. [406] fyfe v. arbuthnot. Before the Lord Chancellor. July 4, 1857. [S. C. 3 Sm. & G. 547; 26 L. J. Ch......
-
Peckham v Taylor
...at least to the extent that the voluntary settlement had been completed. He cited Briilge v. Bridge (16 Beav. 318); Kiddill v. Farnell (3 Sm. & G. 428). [THE master of the eolls referred to Exparte Pye. (18 Ves. 140).] [254] Mr. Melville, for the administrator, argued that there was no exis......