Langston against Blackmore
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1755 |
| Date | 01 January 1755 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 194
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Morgan v. Gronow, 1873, L. R. 16 Eq. 10; In re Turner's settled estates, 1884, 28 Ch. D. 216.
Case 152.-langston against blackmore. Nov. 1755. [See Morgan v. Gronow, 1873, L. E. 16 Eq. 10; In re Turner's settled estates, 1884, 28 Ch. D. 216.] [Execution of a power of appointment to children, held good, though it extended to the issue of one of them, under the special circumstances of the case.-Lib. Eeg. 1755, B. fo. 19, nom. Langdon v. Blackmore.] On marriage of George Southcombe with Dorothy his wife, by indenture of 3d May 1648, a leasehold estate was assigned to trustees, to the use of George Southcombe for life, remainder to his wife for life, remainder to the children of the marriage, with power for the father to appoint the whole or any part to any one or more children of that marriage, if there should be more than one. There were four children of the marriage : and on 3d May 1668, by deed of appointment, in which the wife joined, George, the father, in consideration of £80 paid to him, and £50 to his son George, by Lewis, his eldest son, and for other considerations, appointed-the estate to trustees, as to one moiety to the use of himself for life, remainder to the use of Lewis for life ; and as to the other moiety, immediately to the use of Lewis for life ; remainder as to the whole to such wife as Lewis should marry, for her life ; remainder to the issue of the body, or child or children, of Lewis ; and for want of such issue, to the use of the other sons of George Southcombe the father, and of their sons or issue male, or of such one or more of such other sons of the said George Southcombe to whom Lewis by deed or will should give or dispose of the same; and for want of such issue male, to the executors or assigns of Lewis, for the residue of the term. . Lewis died without issue. John was the only surviving son, and afterwards died, leaving a son and a daughter. The son is dead, and the daughter is plaintiff, and brought this bill, to be relieved against the appointment. Several objections were made to the appointment by Murray, Attorney-General. Pratt v. Jones. , [290] lgt That it is founded in corruption. It ought to Be a pure gift for the benefit of Lewis, and no consideration ought to be taken for the appointment. 2d, That George Southcombe was confined as to the objects, that is, to the children personally ; and could not give any part or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Agassiz v Squire
...298 a.); 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74, s. 47 ; Sugden on Real Property (p. 196, pi. 14); 2 Sug. on Pow. (p. 281 (6th ed.)); Langston v. Blackmare (Amb. 289); Daubeny v. Cockburn (1 Mer. 626); Alexander v. Alexander (2 Ves. sen. 640); Sadler v. Pratt (5 Sim. 632). Mr. Toller, in reply. the master of......
-
Salmon v Gibbs
...467), Doe v. Jackson (1 M. & Eob. 553), Jackson v. Jackson (1 C. & F. 917), Campbell v. Home (1 Y. & C. C. C. 644), Laystone v. Blackstone (Amb. 289), Rwdledge v. Dor-[346]-rM (2 Ves. jun. 362), Thompson v. Simpson (1 D. & W. 487), Kampf v. Jones (2 Kee. 756), Kenworthy v. Bate (G Ves. 793)......
-
Fitz Roy v The Duke of Richmond
...Myl. & K. 1); Rmttledge v. Dorril (2 Ves. jun. 367); Chance on Powers (p. 353); Sug. Pow. (vol. 2, p. 261 (7th edit)); Langston v. Bhchnore (Amb. 289). Mr. Leigh, for the trustees. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. In this case I think that the settlement may be supported,'althoug......
-
Bristow v Warde
...Court will execute the intention as near as possible by giving Henry an estate tail according to Pitt v. Jackson. In Langston v. Black-more, Amb. 289, under a power of appointment to children an execution extending to grandchildren was held good. The Plaintiffs cannot say, it was well execu......