Langslow v Langslow
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 March 1856 |
| Date | 08 March 1856 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 973
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 25 L. J. Ch. 610; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 1057. Adopted, Box v. Barrett, 1866, L. R. 3 Eq. 248.
[552] langslow . langslow. March 6, 8, 1856. [S. C. 25 L. J. Ch. 610; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 1057. Adopted, Box v. Barrett, 1866, L. R. 3 Eq. 248.] A testator had a power to appoint a fund, and his son (A.) and grandson (B.) were objects. Having by deed appointed part to his son, he, by will, reciting that the son could, under the hotchpot clause, be obliged to bring in the appointed part, proceeded, "and then as I make no further appointment, the whole settled fund must be equally divided between A. and B. He made A. his residuary legatee. It turned out that the hotchpot clause did not apply. Held, first, that the will did not operate as an appointment, and, secondly, that no case of election arose. Precatory words will not create a case for election, neither will the absence of the execution of a power upon an erroneous impression, stated in the will, that, by its non-execution, A. (a legatee) will divide the fund equally with B. By the marriage settlement of Mr. and Mrs, Langslow, executed in 1818, certain funds were vested in trustees for the benefit of their lives, and afterwards in trust for the children, grandchildren, or other issue of the marriage, to be born before any appointment, as Mr. and Mrs. Langslow, or the survivor, should appoint ; and for want of such appointment, upon trust for all the children of the marriage equally. The settlement contained a clause, by which " no child " taking any part under an appointment should share in the unappointed part, unless he should bring the sum appointed to him into hotcltpot, "with the other children " of the marriage. This hotchpot clause was, therefore, applicable only as between the children. There were two children of the marriage, namely, Robert William Langslow and William Langslow. Mrs. Langslow died in 1847, and Robert William Langslow, the son, died in 1849, leaving an only son, the Plaintiff, Robert Langslow. Mr. Langslow, in 1849 and 1851, appointed part of the fund to his son William. Mr. Langslow died in 1853, having made his will, dated the 28th February 1850, by which he gave to his son William some policies [553] and all other property which he might have at his death. He then proceeded as follows : - " He will have to bring into hotchpot that portion of the fund settled on the marriage of his dear mother, which has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Royal North Shore Hospital v Crichton Smith
- Cullen v Clarke
-
The 11 & 12 Vic., c. 68, and the Trusts of the Settlement of JAMES DENNIS
...Shannon v. Bradstreet 1 Sch. & Lef. 52. Wilson v. Pigott 2 Ves. jun. 351. Poulson v. WillingtonENR 2 P. Wms. 533. Langslow v. LangslowENR 21 Beav. 552. Fortesque v. Gregor 5 Ves. 533. Graves v. WattersUNK 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 234. Kimberly v. TewUNK 4 Dr. & War. 139; S. C., 5 Ir. Eq. Rep. 389. F......
-
Lewis v Lewis
...L. R. 18 Eq. 595. Campbell v. CampbellELR L. R. 1 Eq. 383. M'Carogher v. WhieldonELR L. R. 3 Eq. 236. Langslow v. LangslowENR 21 Beav. 552. Box v. BarrettELR L. R. 3 Eq. 244. Chichester v. CoventryELR L. R. 2 H. L. 94. Thomas v. Jones 1 De G. Jo. & Sm. 77. Ex parte Pye 2 Wh. & Tud. L. C. 36......