McClure v Evans
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 February 1861 |
| Date | 21 February 1861 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 54 E.R. 691
ROLLS COURT
29BEAV.422. M'CLURE V. EVANS 691 [422] m'clure v. evans. Feb. 14, 21, 1861. A testator, on the marriage of his daughter, gave the husband 1000 jocularly iti exchange for his snuffbox. By his will, the testator gave each of his daughters 1000, but provided that in case any daughter should have received from him any sum advanced "by way of marriage portion or advancement," it should be deducted from the legacy. Held, under the circumstances, that the 1000 given to the husband of the daughter was not to be deducted. Evidence as to statements made by a testator when he executed his will rejected. The testator, William Lees, had four daughters, and in 1830 one of them, Elizabeth, married Mr. Evans, and the testator, immediately after the marriage, paid to Mr. Evans 1000 in the peculiar mode presently stated. The question was, whether this payment was to be considered as made "by way of a marriage portion or advancement." The testator made his will on the 1st of September 1835, and he thereby directed his plate to be divided amongst his four daughters, Alice, Sarah Ann, Elizabeth, and Mary. And he then proceeded to give the following directions to his trustees:- " And also do and shall pay into the proper hands of each of them my said daughters the sum of 1000, as and for their several and respective separate use and benefit, free from the control, debts, or engagements of any husband with whom they respectively may then have intermarried, and their receipts alone, notwithstanding their coverture, shall be good and effectual discharges for the money therein expressed to be received. But in case any of my said daughters should depart this life before payment to her of the said sum of 1000 so intended for her separate use and benefit, and leaving issue for her surviving, then that they my said trustees, and the survivor, his executors and administrators, do and shall pay, apply, and dispose of the said sum of 1000 which would have been payable to such deceased daughter, if living, unto and equally amongst the issue of such daughter, or in [423] and about their respective education, maintenance, and advancement in life or otherwise as to them my said trustees, and the survivor of them, his executors and administrators, shall seem most beneficial and proper." Provided, nevertheless, that in case any of them, my said daughters, should, during my life, have received from me any sum or sums of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ravenscroft v Jones
...Beav. 565); Kirk v. EiMowes (3 Hare, 509); Debeze v. Mann (2 Bro. C. C. 165, 519); Robinson v. WTiitlty (9 Ves. 577); M'Clure v. Evans (29 Beav. 422); Suisse v. Lord Lowther (2 Hare, 424). the lord justice knight bruce. Assuming, as to both the sums here in dispute, the burden of proof to r......