Mackworth v Hinxman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 March 1836 |
| Date | 14 March 1836 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 47 E.R. 205
ROLLS COURT.
S. C. 2 Keen, 658; 5 L. J. Ch. 127.
rolls court. [29] mackworth v. hinxman. March 14, 1836. [S. C. 2 Keen, 658 ; 5 L. J. Ch. 127.] Will, Construction of. Quasi Estate Tail. Property to go with Baronetcy. The object of this suit was to have a declaration of the Court as to the construction of the following clause in the will of Philip Affleck, Esq. The will bore date the 12th January 1797. The testator gave, devised, and bequeathed, to certain trustees therein named, all his shares and interest in the British Plate Glass Manufactory, and all his shares in the British Fishing Company, and all his shares in the Grand Junction Canal Company; and also certain other shares therein mentioned, in trust, that his trustees did and should receive the interest, dividends, and annual 206 DONOVAN V. NEEDHAM DONNELLY 30. produce of the said shares, when and as the same should become due and payable, and pay the same to his nephew, Sir Gilbert Afflick, for life, and after his decease, then in trust, to pay the interest, dividends, and annual produce of the same shares, to be received as aforesaid, to the eldest son of the said Sir Gilbert Afflick, lawfully begotten; and if the said Sir Gilbert Afflick should die without leaving any son lawfully begotten, then in trust, to pay the interest, dividends, and annual produce of the said shares unto such person on whom the baronetcy of the Afflick family should devolve, so that the interest, dividends and annual produce of the said shares should never be alienated from the title. And in case the baronetcy should become extinct, then the said shares should fall into the residue of the testator's personal estate. The testator also gave a snuff-box, and certain plate, upon the same trusts, declared of the shares of the said companies; and he gave the residue of his personal estate to his said nephew, and to his niece, to take as tenants in common. This baronetcy was an old title in tail male. The testator died in 1799, and Sir Gilbert, the tenant for life, died in 1808, without leaving issue, but he left two cousins, Sir James Afflick, and Sir R. Afflick, who were brothers. Sir James succeeded to the title on the death of Sir Gilbert, and died in Au-[30]-gust 1833, and was succeeded by Sir R. Afflick; the trust property had always been in the hands of the trustees. master of the rolls [Lord Langdale]. Is it stated whether Sir Gilbert had any aons1 Counsel. It is admitted on all hands that he had no son, Sir James having succeeded to the title. master OF the rolls. Sir James took under the words of the will, which gave the interest to the person on whom the title of baronet should devolve. Mr. Kindersley contended that the gift of the income was the gift of the property itself absolutely, as in the common case of a gift to a, feme covert. Page v. Leapemvell; Haig v. Smney, and Elton v. Sheppanl. He further contended, that had the title descended on a great-grand-nephew, who might have been the person pointed out in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watson v Arundel
...323. Doe v. Homfray 6 A. & E. 206. Colman v. TurnerELR L. R. 10 Eq. 230. Fletcher v. AshburnerUNK 1 B. C. C. 495. Grieveson v. KirsoppENR 2 Keen. 658. Flint v. WarrenENR 14 Sim. 554. Mallabar v. Mallabar Ca. temp. Talb. 78. Durour v. MotteuxENR 1 Ves. Sen. 320. Ripley v. Waterworth 7 Ves. 4......
-
Bankes v The Baroness Le Despencer, an Infant, and Others
...have anticipated this very case, Bacon v. Proctor (Turn. & Buss. 31), Wool/more v. Burrows (ante, vol. i. p. 512), Mackworth v. Hinxman (2 Keen, 658), Litt sect. 352." Mr, Knight Bruce, in reply, said that either the direction for making the settlement could not be carried into effect at al......
-
Rowland v Morgan
...Bro. C. C. 280, n.), Oarr v. Lord Errol (14 Ves. 478), Viscount Deerhurst v. Duke of [468] St. Albans (5 Madd. 232), Mackworth v. Hinxman (2 Keen 658), Lady Laura Tollemache v. Earl and Countess of Coventry (2 Cl. & En. 611), and Bochfort v. Fitzmaurice (2 D. & W. 20). April 17. the vice-ch......
-
Egerton v Lord Brownlow
...570), [484] Shep. Touchstone, 116, 117, 125 and 133; Peyton v. Bury (2 P. Wms. 626), Dames v. Lowndes (2 Scott, 71), Mackworth v. Hinxman {2 Keen, 658). : Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Bethell and Mr. C. Hall, for the Plaintiff. The proviso in .question creates a conditional limitation; consequently, t......