Lloyd v Lloyd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 July 1841 |
| Date | 22 July 1841 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 49 E.R. 328
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 10 L. J. Ch. 327; 5 Jur. 673. See Green v. Pertwee, 1846, 5 Hare, 252. Questioned and distinguished, In re Judkins Trusts, 1884, 25 Ch. D. 749. Cf. In re Parker [1901], 1 Ch. 408.
328 LLOYD V. LLOYD 4 BEAV. 231. [231] lloyd v. lloyd. July 20, 22, 1841. [S. C. 10 L. J. Ch. 327 ; 5 Jur. 673. See Green v. Pertwee, 1846, 5 Hare, 252. Questioned and distinguished, In re Judkiris Trusts, 1884, 25 Ch. D. 749. Cf. In re Parker [1901], 1 Ch. 408.] Where a gift of a portion of a residue fails, it belongs to the next of kin, and not to the other residuary legatees. Thus, where a testatrix gave one-third of the residue to A., and another one-third to B., and as to the other one-third thereof, gave 500 to C., and the remainder thereof to D., and C. died in the lifetime of the testatrix, it was held that the 500 belonged to the next of kin, as undisposed of. The testatrix gave all her residuary personal estate, after payment thereout of all her just debts, legacies, and expenses attending thereon, upon trust to divide the residue thereof into three equal parts or shares ; and as to one equal third part of such residue, upon trust to pay or transfer the same unto her son John Lloyd, his executors, administrators, or assigns, for his and their own use and benefit. And as to one other equal third part thereof, upon trust that they, her said trustees, &c., should, within the space of six calendar months next after her decease, pay unto her son Charles Lloyd the sum of 500, part thereof, to and for his own sole and absolute use and benefit ; and as to the residm and remainder of such last-mentioned one-third part, upon trust for Charles Lloyd for life, with remainder to his children ; and as to the remaining one-third part of such residue of her estate, she gave the same to her daughter Charlotte Hodgkinson for life, with remainder to her children. Charles Lloyd died in the lifetime of the testatrix, leaving children, and the question was to whom the 500 belonged. [232] Mr. Pemberton and Mr. K. Parker, for the Plaintiffs, the children of Charles Lloyd. The testatrix's intention was evidently to divide the residue between her three children and their issue. The trustees were to divide it into three parts, and pay Charles Lloyd 500, and " the residue and remainder " was for the benefit of him and his children ; when, therefore, the benefit intended for Charles Lloyd has been provided for, the residue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v Jones
...(18 Ves. 463), Davers v. Dewes (3 P. W. 40), Shrymsher v. Northcote (1 Swanst. 566), Easwh v. Appleford (5 Myl. & C. 56), Lloyd v. Lloyd (4 Beav. 231), Mitfwd v. Reynolds (Phillips, 185). Upon the effect generally of the word " issue " in a will, the case of Lees v. Mosley (1 Y. & C. 589; s......
-
Loftus v Stoney
...Archer's case 2 M. & K. 265. Wrigktson v. MacaulayENR 5 Hare, 115. Lord Beaulieu v. Lord Cardigan 1 Swanst. 566. Doe v. LainchberryENR 4 Beav. 231. Doe v. MorganUNK 2 B. & P., N. R. 220. Doe v. EvansENR Cited Hob. 34. Mayor, & c., of Hamilton v. HodsdenENR 3 Salk. 336. Sanderson v. DobsonEN......
-
Thompson v Whitelock
...kin; Attfn*net/-Gentral v. Johnson (Ambl. 577); fikrymsher v. Norfhcote (1 Sw. 566); Easuniv. Appltford (5 M. & C. 56) ; Lloyd v. Lloyd (4 Beav. 231 ; see also Gree,n v. Pwtww, 5 Hare, 249). Mr. Little, for the next of kin of Mary Thompson. The words, " or their legal personal representativ......
-
Green v Pertwee
...not pass to the other residuary legatees, but is treated as undisposed of: Attorney-General v. John-stone (Ambl. 577), Lloyd v. Lloyd (4 Beav. 231), SJcrymsher v. Northcote (2 Swans. 566). Being undisposed of, the heir at law is entitled to that part which arose from real estate, and the ne......