Lucas v Brandreth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 April 1860 |
| Date | 18 April 1860 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 54 E.R. 371
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 6 Jur. (N. S.) 945. See In re Tringham's Trusts [1904], 2 Ch. 493; In re Irwin [1904], 2 Ch. 759.
[274] lucas v. brandreth (No. 2). Feb. 26, 27, April 18, 1860. [S. C. 6 Jur. (N. S.) 945. See In re Tringham's Trusts [1904], 2 Ch. 493; In re Irwin [1904], 2 Ch. 759.] The ultimate limitation in a marriage settlement was "for the next of kin of the wife as if she had not been married, not including the husbands of both or either of her sisters." Held, that the sisters, who were her next of kin, took as joint-tenants. By a marriage settlement, real estates were conveyed to trustees and " their heirs," upon trusts for the parents for life, and afterwards for the children, and in default, as the wife should appoint, and in default for her next of kin. The gift to the next of kin contained no words of inheritance. Held, that they took for life only. By an indenture dated the 12th day of December 1818, and made between Elizabeth Beesley of the first part, Thomas Brandreth of the second part, and trustees of the third part (being the settlement executed in contemplation of the marriage between Thomas Brandreth and Elizabeth Beesley), Elizabeth Beesley conveyed certain freehold and copyhold hereditaments and divers leasehold tenements and other personal estate to the trustees, to hold the freeholds and copyholds to them and their heirs, to the use of them [275] and their heirs, in trust for herself for 372 LUCAS V. BRANDRETH 28BBAV.278. life with remainder to Thomas Brandreth for life, and afterwards on trusts for the children (which failed), and subject thereto as follows:-Upon trust to stand seised and possessed of the several hereditaments, tenements, lands, sum and sums of money, property, estate, and effects thereby granted and assigned for the use of such person and persons, in such shares and proportions, and subject to such charges and limitations, as Elizabeth Beesley, either during the lifetime of Thomas Brandreth or after his decease, should and might, by deed or will, notwithstanding coverture, appoint, and in default of such appointment, or so far as any such, if incomplete, should not extend, upon trust for the next of kin of Elizabeth Beesley as if she had not been married and not including the husbands of both or either of her sisters. Elizabeth Brandreth died in September 1842 without ever having had any issue and intestate, and without having exercised the power of appointment given to her by the settlement of December 1818. She left her two sisters, Ann Maria Williamson, widow, and Sarah Lucas, widow, her only next of kin and co-heiresses, and they were also her only next of kin at the date of the settlement. Ann Maria Williamson died in January 1843, leaving Sarah Lucas her surviving, having disposed of her property by will. Sarah Lucas died in 1849, and the Plaintiff, her legal personal representative, was entitled to her real and personal estate. Thomas Brandreth died in 1857, and the settled property then became distributable. [276] A considerable portion of the real estate had remained unsold down to the present time. Various questions had been raised as to the rights of the parties to the real and personal estate comprised in the settlement of December 1818, and amongst such questions was the following:-Whether the next of kin of Elizabeth Brandreth took as joint-tenants or tenants in common, and whether they took estates of inheritance or estates for life only in the real estates comprised in such settlement. Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Jessel, for the Plaintiff, argued, first, that the two sisters Ann and Sarah took as joint-tenants, there being no words of severance, and it being impossible to import the provisions of the Statute of Distributions into this deed. Secondly, that they took the real estate in fee, notwithstanding the absence of the word " heirs " in the trust for the next of kin. That in construing conveyances under the Statute of Uses, and the ultimate limitations in default of all prior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Sexton v Horton
-
Tatham v Vernon
...remoteness. Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Fry, for the trustees. Mr. Lloyd, in reply. The following cases were also referred to:-Lucas v. Brandreth (28 Beav. 274); Challenger v. Shepherd (8 Term Rep. 597); Moore v. Gingham (10 Beav. 423); Papillon v. Voice (2 Peere Wms. 571); Glenorchy v. Bosville (Ca......
-
Re The Trustee Relief Acts Re Charles Greenwood's Will
...as a class in joint-tenancy. Withy v. Mangles (4 Beav. 358; S. C. 10 Clk. & Fin. 215), Baker v. Gibson (12 Beav. 101), Lucas v. Brandreth (28 Beav. 274), were also cited. Mr. C. Hall, for the representatives of the deceased [393] children, contended, 3GIFF.394. WILKINSON V. LEWIS 463 first,......
-
Re Cross's Trusts. Cross v Cross
...1877, and that the costs be borne by the trust estate. A. H. W. (1) 11 L. R. Ir. 522. (2) [1898] 1 I. R. 185. (3) [1894] 1 Ch. 661. (4) 28 Beav. 274. (5) 72 L. T. 489. (6) [1904] 2 Ch. 487. (7) [1905] 1 Ch. 191. (8) [1910] 2 Ch. 181. (1) 17 W. R. 988. (2) [1909] 1 I. R. 319. (3) [1910] 1 I.......