Marshall v Peascod
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 February 1861 |
| Date | 26 February 1861 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 70 E.R. 976
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Settlement. Construction. Heirs.
976 MARSHALL V. PEASCOD 2 J. & H. 73. [73] marshall . peascod. Feb. 25, 26, 1861. Settlement. Construdion. Heirs. Under a limitation of real estate in a marriage settlement, after the decease and failure of issue of husband and wife, " in trust for nephews and nieces then living, and the several and respective heirs of nephews and nieces then dead, having left lawful issue living at the time of the failure of issue of the marriage, as tenants in common :" Held, that nephews and nieces took life-estates, and that the eldest son of a nephew deceased at the time of such failure of issue took in fee. By the settlement on the marriage of Francis Priestman, dated the 1st of October 1828, real property was conveyed to the use of E. Peascod in fee, in trust for the husband and wife successively for life, and, after their decease, over to the children ; and, iu default of such issue, "in trust for all and every the nephews and nieces of the said Francis Priestman, children of his brother and sisters then living, and of the several and respective heirs of all and every such nephews and nieces of the said F. Priestman, then dead, having left lawful issue, living at the time of the failure of issue of the said F. Priestman by his intended wife, share and share alike, as tenants in common and not as joint-tenants." By his will, dated the 26th of November 1850, the said F. Priestman confirmed the settlement, and gave certain specified estates and his residuary real estate to his wife in [74] fee, upon trust, to pay certain annuities to various nephews and nieces by name, with survivorship, and to retain an annuity for herself; and, subject to the said annuities, the testator devised the said estates to the same nephews and nieces, together with other nephews and nieces, by name, as tenants in common in fee. The testator made a codicil, dated the 22d of September 1852, as follows:-"I, F. Priestman, finding that I have omitted in the above will the names of my two nephews, Priestman Moses and Francis Moses (now dead) it is my wish, that they and their children shall enjoy the same rights and privileges, as brothers and their children, which are mentioned in the said above will." Francis Priestman died in 1854, and his wife in 1859, having had no issue. Francis Moses and Ann Cradock were the only nephews or nieces dead at the time of the testator's death...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meyler v Meyler
...MEYLER. Holliday v. OvertonENR 14 Beav. 467. Lucas v. BrandrethENR 28 Beav. 274. Tatham v. VernonENR 29 Beav. 604. Marshall v. PeascodENR 2 J. & H. 73. Middleton v. Barker W. N., 1873, 231. Barton v. FitzgeraldENR 15 East, 530. Egerton v. Brownlow 4 H. L. Cas. 209, 210. Wight v. Dicksons 1 ......