Langdale v Whitfeld
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 July 1858 |
| Date | 01 July 1858 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 70 E.R. 178
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 27 L. J. Ch. 795; 4 Jur. (N. S.) 706; 6 W. R. 862. See Williams v. Williams, 1878, 8 Ch. D. 792.
Will. Construction. "Moneys".
[426] langdale v. whitfeld. June 30, July 1, 1858. [S. C. 27 L. J. Ch. 795; 4 Jur. (N. S.) 706 ; 6 W. E. 862. See Williams v. Williams, 1878, 8 Ch. D. 792.] Will. Construction. "Moneys." The word "moneys" in a codicil held to comprise not only all moneys in hand, but also all moneys due to testator, whether upon security or otherwise, notwithstanding express mention made in the will of " moneys and securities for money." By an indenture, dated 1844, being the settlement made in contemplation of the marriage of Thomas Haire and Mary Ann, his wife, certain real and personal property mentioned in the schedules thereto was settled upon trust for Mary Ann for life for her separate use, remainder for Thomas Haire for life, remainder, in default of issue of the marriage, upon trust for such person or persons and for such estates and interests as Mary Ann, notwithstanding her coverture, should by will appoint, and, in default of appointment, to her next of kin under the Statutes of Distribution exclusively of Thomas Haire. Mary Ann made her will in 1845; and thereby, after reciting the settlement, and that the trustees thereof were to stand possessed of the mortgage debts and sums of money, bonds, bills, notes, securities, produce of the sale of ;the messuage and all other the property and effects comprised in the schedules annexed to the indenture of settlement, in default of issue of the marriage and subject to a life interest therein of her husband, upon trust for such persons, intents and purposes as she, notwithstanding her coverture, should by her will give and bequeath the same, she, in exercise and execution of the power to her given by the settlement, and all other powers enabling her, in default of such issue, and subject and without prejudice to the interest of her said husband therein, gave and bequeathed all and singular the (1) 15 & 16 Viet. c. 83. By this section, the record and certificate being given in evidence shall entitle the Plaintiff, on obtaining a decree or decretal order, to his full costs, charges and expenses, taxed as between attorney and client, unless the Judge making such decree or order shall certify that the Plaintiff ought not to have such full costs. 4K. &J.427. LANGDALE V. WHITFELD 179 said trust moneys, property and other her personal estate in manner thereinafter mentioned. She then proceeded to give pecuniary legacies to various persons and to different charities, and directed the whole of such legacies to be paid within twelve calendar months next after the decease of the [427] survivor of her husband and herself. Amongst the legacies so bequeathed were a legacy of 500 to Robert Thomson, to be paid to him if, and when, and so soon after the period before mentioned as he should attain the age of twenty-one years; two legacies, of 100 each, to her goddaughters, the Defendants, Mary Burnet and Florence King, to be paid in like manner, if and when they should respectively attain twenty-one years; and a legacy of 100 to her cook, Maria Ford : and after giving certain specific legacies of furniture, plate, coins, pictures, books, wearing apparel and trinkets, she proceeded as follows :-" And as to all the residue of my moneys, securities for money, goods, chattels, effects, and personal estate, not by me hereinbefore otherwise disposed of, I give the same to my friend, Mary Ann Langdale," meaning the Plaintiff. By a codicil to her will, dated August 1849, the testatrix, after reciting the bequest by her will to Thomson of the legacy of 500, and to Mary Burnet and Florence King of the legacies of 100 each, and to Maria Ford of the legacy of 100, payable at the times and in the manner in the will mentioned, she revoked the same legacy of 500 to Thomson, and the said legacies of 100 apiece to Mary Burnet and Florence King, and gave to Thomson the sum of 300. And she thereby directed that, as well the last-mentioned legacy to Thomson, as the said legacy to Maria Ford, should be paid to the said legatees respectively " out of any moneys of or to which she might be possessed or entitled at the time of her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bevan v Bevan
...v. Dunally 6 Ir. Ch. R. 540. Hewitt v. Bredin 10 Ir. Jur. (N. S.) 265. Reilly v. Stoney 16 Ir. Ch. R. 295. Langdale v. WhitfieldENR 4 K. & J. 426. Re Powell's TrustENR Johns. 49. Dowson v. Gaskoin 2 Kee. 14. Williams v. Williams 8 Ch. Div. 789. Jones v. TuckerENR 2 Mer. 533. Jones v. Curry ......
-
Nevinson v Lady Lennard
...& K. 265); Rogers v. Thomas (2 Keen, 8); Stocks v. Barre (Johns. 54); G-rosvenor v. Durston (25 Beav. 97); and see Langdalev. Whit/ell (4 Kay & J. 426); Chapman v. Reynolds (28 Beav. 221); Gover v. Davis (29 Beav. 222). Mr. Baggallay, Mr. Hobhouse, Mr. Selwyn, Mr. Busk, Mr. Druce and Mr. Ha......
-
Ion v Ashton
...the Statute of Mortmain ; 9 Geo. 2, c. 36; Myers v. Perigal (2 De G. M. & G. 599); Phillips v. Beal (25 Beav. 27); Langdalev. imtfield (4 Kay & J. 426); Bootle v. Blundell (1 Mer. 193); Kirke v. Kirke (4 Russ. 449); Janes v. Bruce (11 Sim. 221); Lamphier v. Despanl (2 Dru. & War. 64); Lomax......
-
Dillon v M'Donnell
...Byrom v. BrandrethELR L. R. 16 Eq. 475. Fryer v. RankinENR 11 Sim. 55 Manning v. PurcellENR 7 De G. M. & G. 55. Langdale v. WhitfieldENR 4 K. & J. 426. Ogle v. KnipeELR L. R. 8 Eq. 434. Collins v. CollinsELR L. R. 12 Eq. 455. Phillips v. Eastwood Li. & G. temp. Sug. 270. Barrett v. White 1 ......