Leake, and Others, Plaintiffs, and Robinson, and Others, Defendants
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1817 |
| Date | 01 January 1817 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 35 E.R. 979
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Kevern v. Williams, 1832, 5 Sim. 177; Watson v. Hayes, 1839, 5 My. & Cr. 133; Harris v. Davis, 1844, 1 Coll. 421; Packham v. Gregory, 1845, 4 Hare, 397; Evans v. Jones, 1846, 2 Coll. 526; Blagrove v. Hancock, 1848, 16 Sim. 377; Goring v. Howard, 1848, 16 Sim. 403; In re Bartholomew's Trust, 1849, 1 Ha. & Tw. 567; Greenwood v. Roberts, 1851, 15 Beav. 98; Peard v. Kekewich, 1852, 15 Beav. 173; Walker v. Mower, 1852, 16 Beav. 367; Monypenny v. Dering, 1852, 2 De G. M. & G. 184; Stead v. Platt, 1853, 18 Beav. 55. Within the Rule, Laxton v. Eedle, 1854, 19 Beav. 323. Distinguished, Hodgson v. Smithson, 1856, 21 Beav. 358. Followed, Read v. Gooding, 1856, 21 Beav. 480. See In re Sanderson's Trust, 1857, 3 K. & J. 505. Followed, Merlin v. Blagrave, 1858, 25 Beav. 133. Not Applicable, M'Clachlan v. Taitt, 1860, 28 Beav. 410. Distinguished, Wilkinson v. Duncan, 1861, 30 Beav. 115. Followed, Thomas v. Wilberforce, 1862, 31 Beav. 302. See Re Grove's Trusts, 1862, 3 Giff. 581; West v. West, 1863, 4 Giff. 202; Gosling v. Gosling, 1863-66, 32 Beav. 65; 1 De G. J. & Sm. 1; L. R. 1 H. L. 298. Re Bulley's Trust Estate, 1865, 13 L. T. 265; Locke v. Lamb, 1867, L. R 4 Eq. 375; Merry v. Hill, 1869, L. R. 8 Eq. 624; In re Moseley's Trusts, 1871, L. R. 11 Eq. 504; Spencer v. Wilson, 1873, L. R. 16 Eq. 513; Hale v. Hale, 1876, 3 Ch. D. 647; Bhoobun Mohini Debya v. Hurrish Chunder Chowdhry, 1878, L. R. 5 Ind. Apps. 146: In re Grimshaw's Trusts, 1879, 11 Ch. D. 410; Patching v. Barnett, 1880. 49 L. J. Ch. 669; Pearks v. Moseley, 1880, 5 App. Cas. 723; In re Bunn, 1880, 16 Ch. D. 48; Watson v. Young, 1.885, 28 Ch. D. 442; Be Martin, 1887, 57 L. T. 473; In re Bevan's Trusts 1887, 34 Ch. D. 718.
[363] leake, and others, Plaintiffs, and robinson, and others, Defendants. Bolls. Feb. 1817, [See Kevern v. Williams, 1832, 5 Sim. 177 ; Watson v. Hayes, 1839, 5 My. & Or. 133 ; Harris v. Davis, 1844, 1 Coll. 421 ; Packhamv. Gregory, 1845, 4- Hare, 397 ; Evans v. Jones, 1846, 2 Coll. 526 ; Blagrove v. Hancock, 1848, 16 Sim.. 377 ; Goring v. Howard, 1848, 16 Sim. 403 ; In re Bartholomew's Trust, 1849, 1 Ha. & Tw.' 567 ; Greenwood v. Roberts, 1851, 15 Boav. 98 ; Peard v. Kekewich, 1852, 15 Beav. 173 ; Walker v. Mower, 1852, 16 Beav. 367 ; Monypenny v. JJering, 1852, 2 De G. M. & G. 184 ; Stead v. Platt, 1853, 18 Beav. 55. Within the Rule, Laxton v. Eedle, 1854, 19 Beav. 323. Distinguished, Hodgson v. Smithson, 1856, 21 Beav. 358. Followed,Bead v. Goading, 1856,21 Beav. 480. See In re Sanderson's Trust, 1857, 3 K. & J. 505. Followed, Merlin v. Blagrave, 1858, 25 Beav. 133. Not applicable, M'Clachlan v. Taitt, 1860,28 Beav. 410. Distinguished, Wilkinson v. Duncan, 1861, 30 Beav. 115. Followed, Thomas v. Wilberforce, 1862, 31 Beav. 302. See Be Grove's Trusts, 1862, 3 Giff. 581 ; West v. West, 1863, 4 Gill. 202 ; Gosling v. Gosling, 1863-66, 32 Beav. 65; 1 De G. J. & Sm. 1 ; L. R. 1 H.'L. 298. Be Bulley's Trust Estate, 1865, 13 L. T. 265; Locke v. Lamb, 1.867, L. R. 4 Eq. 375 ; Merry v. Hill, 1869, L. R. 8 Eq. 624 ; In re Moseley's Trusts, 1871, L. R. 11 Eq. 504; Spencer v. Wilson, 1873, L. R. 16 Eq. 513 ; Hale v. Hale, 1876, 3 Ch. D. 647 ; Bhoobun Mohini Debya v. Ilurrish Chunder Chowdhry, 1878, L. R. 5 Ind. Apps. 146 : In re Gri'mshaw's Trusts, 1879, 11 Ch. D. 410 ; Patching v. Barnett, 1880. 49 L. J. Ch. 669 ; Pearks v. Mos'eley, 1880, 5 App. Cas. 723 ; In re Bunn, 1880, 16 Ch. D. 48 ; Watson v. Young, 1.885, 28 Ch. D. 442 ; Be Martin, 1887, 57 L. T. 473 ; In re Sevan's Trusts^ 1887, 34 Ch. D. 718.] Gift of real and personal estate, to trustees, upon trust to apply the rents and dividends (or so much as they should think fit), to the maintenance, &c., of W. B. R. until twenty-five ; :then to permit him to receive the same during his life ; and, after his death, to apply the same (or so much, &c.), to the maintenance, &c., of all and every the children of W. B. R. until twenty-five respectively ; then upon trust, to assign and transfer to such children so attaining twenty-five ; " and in case " W. B. B. shall die without leaving issue living at the time of his death, or leaving " such, and all die before twenty-five," upon trust, to pay, &c., unto and among " all and every the brothers and sisters of W. B. B. share and share alike, upon their attainment of twenty-five, or marriage respectively. Followed by a gift of residue, upon trust, as to one moiety, to perrn.it the testator's daughter A. and her husband,1 to receive the rents, &c., during their lives in succession, and, after the death of the survivor, to the children (except W. B. B.) in the same manner as with respect to the former gift. Arid, as to the other moiety, upon like trusts for the testator's daughter B., her husband and family; with survivorship between the respective grand-children ; and, in case of the death of either of the daughters without leaving issue living at her decease, then to the children of the surviving daughter. LI eld, that the limitation to the brothers and sisters of W. B. B. in default of issue living to attain twenty-five, was intended to include all his 980 LEAKE V. ROBINSON 2 MEK, 364. brothers and sisters living at his death, and was consequently void for remoteness. Held, vested interests at twenty-five in every instance, notwithstanding different expressions, there being no antecedent gift, of which it could have been the testator's intention merely to postpone the enjoyment; the gift being only the direction to pay at twenty-five. A. having died, leaving issue, the moiety of the residue intended for her children held undisposed of, as being void for remoteness. The other moiety held to rest in contingency during the life of B. ; and, if she should die without issue, to bo well given over to the children of A. JohnMihuard Rowe, by his will, dated the 17th of June 1.790, gave to the Plaintiffs (whom he appointed executors), all his three per cent, and four per cent, stock, upon trust, in the first place, to pay to his wife, Sukey Rowe, during her life, two several annuities of 245, 8s., and 168, out of the dividends of the four per cents, (which with certain other provisions, were declared to bo in bar of dower and thirds), and in the next place, to pay and apply an annuity of 54, 12s. (thereby given) towards the maintenance, education, or advancement of his grandson 'William Roice Robinson, until he should attain twenty-[364]-five ; and from and after his attainment of that age, to pay him the said annuity during his life ; and after his decease, the testator bequeathed the principal sum of 1820 (part of his three per cent, annuities), or so much thereof as should produce the annual sum of 54, 12s. as after mentioned ; and after the decease of his wife, he directed that his said executors should pay and apply the annual sum of 145 (part of the annuity of 245, 8s.), and the annual sum of 40 (part of the [365] annuity of 168, towards the maintenencc of the said W. R. Robinson till twenty-live ; and afterwards for his life, and after his decease, bequeathed the principal sums of 4840, 16s. 8d., three per cents, and 1000 four per cents, as after mentioned. The testator then directed the Plaintiffs to apply the dividends of 3333, 6s. 8d. three per cents, for the maintenance and advancement of his grandson, Charles Mitford, until twenty-five, and upon his attaining that age, to transfer to him the said principal sum of 3333, Gs. 8d., three per cents. Ho then gave to the Plaintiffs 1000 India stock upon trust, to apply the dividends, &c., thereof, and also the annual sum of 100 (part of the dividends, ixrc., of his three per cent, stock), or so much as they should think fit, towards the maintenance, education, and advancement of his said grandson, William Rowe Robinson, until twenty-five ; and upon his attaining that ago, he gave to him the dividends of the said stock during his life ; and after his decease, he bequeathed the said 1000 East India stock, and the sum of 3333, 6s. 8d., three per cents, (the dividends whereof then produced 100 per ann.) as after mentioned. The testator then devised and bequeathed to the plaintiffs, their heirs, &c., all his real estates at Westham and Pevensey, of which he was seised in fee, or as mortgagee in possession, or otherwise, and the principal sums charged thereon, and the ground-rents issuing out of his messuages in Hedge Lane, upon trust to apply the said ground-rents, and the rents and profits of his said estates, and interest of the said mortgage monies, or such parts as they should judge proper, towards the maintenance, education, or advancement of [366] his said grandson, William Rowe Robinson, until twenty-five ; and after his attaining that age, to pay to, or permit him to have and receive the same during his life, and after his death (in case ho should leave any lawful issue), to pay and apply the said several annual sums of 54, 12s., 145, 8s., 100 and 40, and'the dvidends of the said 1000 India stock, and the rents and profits of the said estates at Westham and Pevensey, and the interest of the said mortgage monies, and the said ground-rents, or such part thereof as they (the Plaintiffs) should think proper, unto, and for the maintenance, education, and advancement of all and every the child and children of the said William Roice Robinson, lawfully begotten, until (being sons) they should respectively attain twenty-five, or (being daughters) should attain such age, or marry with the consent of parents or guardians; and then to pay, transfer, and assign an equal proportion of the said several principal sums of 1820, 4846, 16s. 8d., and 3333, Gs. 8d., three per cents., 1.000 four per cents., ami 1000 East India stock, and the said ground-rents and esi ates at WeslJium and Pevensey, and the mortgage monies, and all the interest, dividends, or rents due or payable in respect of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Browne v Browne
...on the decision of the House of Lords in Duffield v. Duffield (3 Bli. (N. S.) 260). The same principle was recognised in Leake v. Robinson (2 Mer. 363); Bull v. Pritchard (1 Russ. 213); Newman v. Newman (10 Sim. 51); Jones v. Mackilwain (1 Russ. 220); Russel v. Buclmnan (2 C. & M. 561). On ......
-
Monypenny v Dering
...Ves. 12), Doe v. Selby (2 B.'& C. 926), Mellish v. Hellish (2 B. & C.; 520), Chorlten v. Craven (cited 2 B. & C. 524), Leake v. Robinson (2 Mer. 363), Vanderplank v. King (3 Hare, 1), were also cited and commented on in the course of the argument. Mr. Walker appeared for Thomas Gybbon Monyp......
-
James v Lord Wynford
...name, yet, as he was associated with the unascertained class as to which the gift was void, it is void also as to him: Leake v. Robinson (2 Mer. 363), Porter v. Fox (6 Sim. 485). The language used in this will does not justify the Defendants in contending that the- estates given by this wil......
-
Salmon v Salmon
...(1 Drew. 73). Mr. Whitehead, for the residuary legatee, contended, first, that the gift over was too remote ; Leake v. lob-\Z\.~\-initm (2 Mer. 363); Blagrove v. Hancock (16 Sim. 371) ; Bead v. Goatling (21 Beav. 478) ; tieaman v. Wood (22 Beav. 591); Webster v. Bod/lington (26 Beav. 128); ......