Lyddon v Ellison
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 August 1854 |
| Date | 07 August 1854 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 470
ROLLS COURT.
18 Jur. 1066; 2 W. R. 690.
[565] lyddon . ellison. July 26, August 7, 1854. [18 Jur. 1066 ; 2 W. R 690.] By merely making provisions for grandchildren, grandparents do not necessarily place themselves in loco parentis, Bequest to a daughter's "younger children,"held to mean the children other than the eldest in age, and therefore to exclude the eldest child, a daughter, and to include her younger brother, though, under his parents' marriage settlement, the family estates stood settled on him. The testatrix directed her trustees to settle her property, but in such a way that some of the limitations would be void for remoteness. Held, that in carrying the direction into effect, the Court would modify the limitations, so as to make them consistent with the rules of law and equity. Bequest of personalty to trustees for a lady, to be paid at twenty-one, with a direction to settle her share on her for life, and afterwards on her children. The age of A. rendering it impossible that she should have children: Held, that the absolute interest, given to her in the first instance, remained intact, and that she was entitled to payment. A female aged fifty-six was absolutely entitled to a fund, subject to the contingency of her having children. Payment was ordered on her own recognizances. Lady Wilson, by her will dated 17th of November 1817, gave all her residuary personal estate to trustees upon trust to convert and invest and pay the income to her daughter Maria, the wife of Sir John Trevelyan, for life, and after her decease, upon trust " for the younger children of her said daughter, Maria Trevelyan, share and share alike;" the shares of sons to be paid, transferred or assigned to them at twenty-one, and the shares of daughters to be payable, transferable or assignable at twenty-one, or marriage. And the testatrix desired " that the shares of such daughters of her said daughter might not be paid, transferred or assigned to them, or otherwise put at their absolute disposal, but be settled and secured, under the direction of her said trustees, or the survivors or survivor of them, [566] so as for each of such daughters, from the time of marriage, or of attaining the age of twenty-one years, and during the rest of 19BBAV. 847. LYDBON V. ELLISON 471 her life, to have, receive and take the annual income and produce of her share of the said residuary personal estate, with such accumulations thereof as thereinafter mentioned, for her own sole and separate use and benefit, independent of her husband, and so as for the capital of the share of each such daughter, on her decease, to pass and be taken and enjoyed by her children or child (if any), with such contingent trusts, or remainders, or powers, in the event of there being no children or child to take the share of any of the said daughters of her said daughter Maria, as her said trustees or trustee for the time being should, in their or his discretion, think proper." There were gifts over in events which, however, did not take place. The testatrix died on the 17th of August 1818, leaving her daughter, Maria Trevelyan, and ten children of her daughter, surviving. At the date of the will and of the testatrix's death, Maria Jane Trevelyan (afterwards Maria Jane Ellison), was the eldest surviving child of Maria Trevelyan, but there had been two elder children, who were then dead. At the same period, Sir Walter Calverly Trevelyan was the second surviving child of Maria Trevelyan, but was her eldest surviving son, and entitled, as such, to succeed to the family estates of his father, under the marriage settlement of his father and mother, dated in July 1791. Julia, one of the daughters of Maria Trevelyan, was still unmarried, and was now at the age of fifty-six. Maria Trevelyan died on the 5th of April 1851, and the surviving trustee filed this bill to carry the trusts of the will into execution, and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sandeman v Mackenzie
...time when the character of younger or eldest son has to be determined for the purpose of construing the limitation : Lyddon v. Ellison (19 Beav. 565), Scarisbrick v. SMmersdale (4 Y. & C. 78, 116), Wilbraham v. Scarisbrick (1 H. L. Gas. 167), Windhamv. Graham (1 Buss. 331), Hall v. Hewer (A......
-
Longfield v Bantry
...271. Down v. WorrallENR 1 My. & K. 561. In re EddowesENR 1 Dr. & Sm. 395. Lord Teynham v. WebbENR 2 Ves. Sen. 198. Lyddon v. EllisonENR 19 Beav. 565. Bathurst v. ErringtonELR 2 App. Cas. 698, 710. In re Bayley's settlementELR L. R. 6 Ch. App. 590. Choat v. Yeates 1 J. & W. 112. Vernon v. Ea......
-
Macoubrey v Jones
...Scarisbrick v. Lord Skelmersdale (4 Y. &. C. 112), Livesey v. Livesey (13 Sim. 33; S. C. on appeal, 2 H. L. Gas. 419), Lyddm v. Ellison (19 Beav. 565). [The Vice-Chancellor referred to Peacocke v. Pares (2 Keen, 689) as deciding that a second son becoming an eldest son, but prevented from t......
-
Stanley v Jackman
...(2 Jac. & W. 279); Hulme v. Hulme (9 Sim. 644); Arnold v. Arnold (16 Sim. 404); Campbell v. Brawnrigg (1 Phil. 301). In Lyddon v. Ellison (19 Beav. 565), where there was an absolute gift to daughters, in the first instance, with a subsequent direction to settle, the Court said (Ibid. 574), ......