Lloyd v Williams
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 April 1816 |
| Date | 30 April 1816 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 56 E.R. 166
COURT OF THE VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND
166 LLOYD I'. WILLIAMS 1 MADD. 450. [450] lloyd v. williams. April 30, 1816. Where a legacy is left to a feme covert, and the assignees of the husband agree with the executors, on a claim made for a settlement, to take only a part of the legacy, and the feme covert dies, leaving a child, such child is entitled to the residue of the legacy, under the contract. he child The child of a feme covert, a legatee, has no equity to insist on a settlement, after the death of the mother, unless there is a contract, or a decree for a settlement in the lifetime of the mother. David Jones, by his will, 29th September 1798, bequeathed to David Lloyd, Eleanor Lloyd, Evan Lloyd and Mary Lloyd, 500 each, to be paid them at twenty-five, with benefit of survivorship in case any of them died under that age, without leaving any lawful issue. He also gave to them, in the same manner, the residue of his property, after payment of some other legacies ; and appointed Thomas Williams, David Lewis and Samuel Pride his executors. The testator died on the 18th January 1799, and the executors proved the will. Lewis and Pride, two of the executors soon after died, without having possessed themselves of any part of the testator's estate. David Lloyd, one of the legatees, attained twenty-five on the 24th September 1803. Evan Lloyd died before he had attained twenty-five. Mary Lloyd married the Defendant David Johnstone, and attained twenty-five on the 15th March 1808. Eleanor Lloyd attained twenty-five on the 8th March 1810. On the 5th February 1807 a commission of bankrupt issued against David Johnstone ; and the Defendants, Parkes and Watson, were chosen assignees. [481] An agreement was made between the assignees and Williams, the executor, whereby, in consideration of a sum to be paid to the assignees, a settlement was to be made upon Mary Johnstone and her children, out of the legacy of 500 ; and in pursuance of this agreement, a release, dated the 20th June 1808, was executed by the assignees to the executor Williams. No settlement was made in pursuance of the agreement. Johnstone the bankrupt obtained his certificate in the lifetime of his wife. Mary Johnstone died leaving a daughter, Diana Lloyd Johnstone. The bill was filed by David and Eleanor Lloyd, against Thomas Williams, the surviving executor ; David Johnstone the bankrupt, against Diana Lloyd Johnstone : and also against Parkes and Watson, the assignees of Johnstone, praying an account against Williams, and that the respective rights of the parties might be declared. David Johnstone, by his answer, insisted that having obtained letters of administration to his wife, he was, under the release by the assignees and creditors, entitled to the balance of the legacy of 500 and the one-fourth part of the residue given to his wife, and to her surviving share in the legacy of 500 left to Evan Lloyd, and also to her, by reason of the decease of Evan Lloyd. [452] Diana Johnstone, the infant, by her answer, claimed to be entitled to all such right and interest as she would have had if a settlement had been made. The assignees answered separately. Parkes claimed to be entitled to Mary Johnstone's share of Evan Lloyd's legacy of 500, and to her share of Evan Lloyd's fourth part of the residue of the testator's personal estate. Watson, the other assignee, made no claim. Sir Arthur Pigott and Mr. Parker, for Plaintiff. The claims of the Plaintiff cannot be resisted, and an account must be directed as prayed. The only points in dispute are between the Defendants, with which we have no concern. Mr. Cooke and Mr. Maddock, for the Defendant, Diana Johnstone, the infant. There can be no doubt that as to the 500 legacy, and the one-fourth part of the residue given to Mary Johnstone, after the payment to the assignees, included in the release of the 20th June 1808, the infant is entitled to it. The agreement and release made by the assignees was in consequence of the claim of the bankrupt's wife to a settlement on her and her issue, and the bankrupt's wife being dead, the infant 1MADD. 453. LLOYD V. WILLIAMS 167 is entitled. We also insist that, as what accrued due in respect of Evan Lloyd's death was intended to have been included in the release, that also ought to be settled on the infant; but supposing the assignees have a claim to that as not being, in fact, included in the release, the infant [453] is, nevertheless, entitled to a settlement out of it; there being an equity which entitles the infant to a settlement out of the share of the mother in this surviving legacy, though her mother is dead. There are several authorities which countenance this claim of the infant. Grosvenor v. Lane (-2 Atk. 179), Cockell v. Phipps (1 Dick. 391), Rowe v. Jackson (2 Dick. 604). In Murray v. Lord Ellibank (13 Ves. 7), the Master of the Rolls says, "The question has been made whether the children have any substantive and independent right to claim a settlement after the death of their mother, if a settlement was not directed during her life. In the case of Hearle v. Greenbank (3 Atk. 695 ; see p. 717), Lord Hardwicke appears to state that as a doubtful point; and, that he conceived there was no case determining that the children have such right. His Lordship seems not to have recollected the case that was before him, Grosvenor v. Lane (2 Atk. 180), in which he took notice of such a decree ; though the question before him was not upon the point. That was the case of the second husband endeavouring to reduce his wife's fortune into possession ; and the Court directed a settlement upon the child: the immediate point in the cause before Lord Hardwicke turning upon the right of the child absolutely to the whole legacy, in consequence of an appropriation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace v Auldjo
...of the Rolls in terms leading to the conclusion, that if she had filed a bill the decision would have been different. Lloyd v. Williams (1 Madd. 450, 458) will be relied on as against us, but the reasoning is not satisfactory, for it is no stronger interference with a husband's rights to ho......
-
Baldwin v Baldwin
...by her will, as completely say the thing shall take its legal course; and that is what she says in this case. Again, in Lloyd v. Williams (1 Madd. 450), the same doctrine is asserted. The present case is very similar to that. It also appears that if the wife has, as between herself and her ......
-
Hodgens v Hodgens
...v. Beaumont 3 Ves. 98. Millet v. Rowse 7 Ves. 419. Bathurst v. Murray 8 Ves. 79. Cave v. CaveENR 15 Beav. 227. Lloyd v. WilliamsENR 1 Madd. 450. Wallace v. Auldjo 1 De G. Jo. & Sm. 643. Macaulay v. Philips 4 Ves. 15. Johnson v. Johnson 1 Jac. & Walk. 472. Ellison v. Thomas 1 De G. Jo. & Sm.......
-
Barrow v Barrow
...terms that shall be allowed. But I shall not dispose of any part of the case without taking time to consider it. Judgment reserved. (1) 1 Madd. 450. Where, however, what was held was that a child has no equity to insist on a settlement, " unless there be a contract or a decree for a settlem......