Lett v Randall
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1855 |
| Year | 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 65 E.R. 572
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Affirmed, 2 De G. F. & J. 388; 45 E. R. 671 (with note).
[83] lett v. eandall. lett v. dormer. March 15, 23, -April 17, 18, 19, June 23, 25, 1855. [Affirmed, 2 De G. F. & J. 388; 45 E. E. 671 (with note).] Devise, upon trust, to pay and make up to testator's wife 1200 a year for her life ; and to divide the residue of his property amongst all his children who might be living at his decease, share and share alike, for their lives, and in case any of his children, being daughters, should marry and die in the lifetime of her husband, that the share of her so dying should go to her husband for his life : and after his decease, then to be equally divided among all the children of his said daughters then living; and, in default of any such child or children, then that such share or (1) Two cases involving the same principle recently came before Vice-Chancellor Wood, who adopted the doctrine laid down by Vice-Chancellor Stuart in Lomax v. Ripley. The case of Wallgrave v. Tebbs (2 Kay & J., 313) was of this kind. The testator, William Coles, gave certain real and personal estate to Messrs. Tebbs and Martin, and a bill was filed against them, asking that the gift should be declared void, as made on a secret trust that the Defendants should carry into effect certain charitable objects. The Defendants, by their answer, admitted that since the testator's death they had been informed and believed that on the occasion of making his will the testator determined on disposing of a part of his property to persons known to be interested in charitable and religious objects; and knowing one of theni personally, and the other by character, he made the bequest, not by way of trust, but merely with that degree of confidence which a knowledge of character enables a donor to have as to the probable application of a gift. They denied that they had ever any communication with the testator about his will, or of his intentions or wishes ; but they admitted, though contending they were entitled to hold the property from trust, they considered it would be .proper for them, where benefits were left them by will, under the circumstances stated, to use those benefits in a manner consistent with the character and profession in consideration of which they believed they were selected 3 SM. & GIFT. 84. LETT 1'. BAND ALL 573 shares should go to and be divided equally, share and share alike. And, from and after the decease of his wife, that the sum of 1200 should be equally divided among all his said children who should be then living. And he expressly declared that the said provision given unto his wife was intended to be, and should by her be, accepted in full, entire lieu, bar, recompense, discharge and satisfaction of, and for all and all manner of claims and demands whatsoever which she at any time might or could have, or which without provision she could or might have, at the time of his decease, out of any part of his real or personal estate by virtue of any settlement or other writing at any time made upon her, or on account of any dower she might in any manner have or claim out of or upon, or from or in respect of, any-part of his estate or effects in any manner however. Two of the daughters died intestate and without issue. Held, First. That the widow was excluded from anything beyond the annuity of 1200. Secondly. That on the death of the last survivor of the children the annuity sunk into the residue, and was not a perpetual annuity. Thirdly. That the gift to the children of the daughters was void for remoteness. William Kandall, of Battersea, in the county of Surrey, by his will, dated July 1st, 1824, after directing payment of his just debts, made the following disposition :- I give, devise and bequeath to Thomas Lett the elder, Nathaniel Eandall and Thomas Lett the younger, their heirs, executors and administrators, all and singular my freehold, leasehold and copyhold estates, and also all my personal estate, of what nature or kind soever the same may be or consist of, upon trust, to pay and make up unto my dear wife the sum of 1200 per annum, including any sum or sums of money she may be entitled to under and by virtue'of the will of her late father, by equal quarterly payments, for and during the term of her natural life; and, upon further trust, to pay and divide the residue of my said property unto and among all and every my child and children, who may be living at the time of my decease, [84] share and share alike, for and during the term of their natural lives; and in case any of my said children, being daughters, shall marry, and shall happen to depart this life, in the life of her or their said husbands, then I direct that the part or share, parts or shares, of her or them so dying as aforesaid, shall go to or be paid to her or their respective husband or husbands for and during the term of his or their natural life or lives ; and from and after his or their decease, then to be equally divided among and amongst all and every the child and children of my said daughter and daughters then living, share and share alike." And in default of any such child or children, then I direct such part or share, or parts or shares, shall go to and be paid and divided equally, share and share alike. And from and after the decease of my said dear wife, I direct that the sum of 1200 per annum, so to be paid unto her as aforesaid, shall go to and be equally divided unto and amongst all and every my said dear children who shall .be then living, share and share alike. And it is my mind and will, and I do hereby by the testator. It appeared from the. evidence that a letter had been written as a sketch for tbe testator to sign (which, however, he never signed), expressing his confidence that the Defendants would make use of the property in such a way as seemed best fitted to promote the glory of God and the welfare of their fellow-sinners ; and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Public Trustee for the Australian Capital Territory v Rebecca Dowling Smith
...Archdall (1918) 19 SR (NSW) 10 Pedulla v Nasti (1990) 20 NSWLR 720 Pickering v Stamford (1797) 3 Ves Jr 492; 30 ER 1121 Lett v Randall (1855) 3 Sm & G 83; 65 ER 572 Ramsay v Shelmerdine (1865) LR 1 Eq 129 Re Taylor (1885) 52 LT 839 Vachell v Breton (1706) 5 Bro Parl Cases 51, 2 ER 527 Re Wy......
- Penny v Milligan