Methuen v Methuen
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 June 1817 |
| Date | 23 June 1817 |
| Court | Ecclesiastical Court |
English Reports Citation: 161 E.R. 1186
IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS AT DOCTORS' COMMONS AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELEGATES.
[416] methuen v. methuen. Prerogative Court, Trinity Tenn, June 23rd, 1817.-A codicil virtually revoked by another codicil of a subsequent date, there being no express words of revocation in the latter instrument [Applied, Busteed v. Eagai, 1834, Milw. 349 Referred to, Thome v. Rooke, 1840, 2 Curt. 799 , Henfiey v. Henfiey, 1842, 4 Mooie, P C .34 Applied, Dempsey v. Lau son, 1877, 2 P D 107 , O'Leary v Douglass, 1878, 3 L K Ir 330, Jenner v. Ffinch, 1879, 5 P D. 112, Chtchestej v Quatiefages, [1895] P 188] Paul Cobb Methuen, of Corsham Hall, in the county of Wilts, died on the 15th of September, 1816, leaving four sons and four daughters. Of the daughters two were single, and one was married to the Honourable General De Grey, and another to Lord Edward O'Bryen. The following testamentary papers were found :- A will dated 12th of October, 1809. A codicil dated 14th of April, 1812. A codicil dated 10th of May, 1813. A codicil dated 1st of April, 1815. The only question in the case was as to the validity of the codicil of 10th of May, 1813. This codicil was propounded by the widow of the deceased who was the universal legatee for life named in it, and opposed by Mr. Paul Methuen, the eldest son of the deceased; and the [417] residuary legatee named in the will, who prayed probate of the will and the other codicils: the ground of opposition to the codicil in question was, that it had been virtually cancelled by a codicil of a subsequent date, viz. that of the 1st of April, 1815. The two codicils were as follows :- " A codicil to be annexed to the last will and testament of me, Paul Cobb Methuen, of Corsham House, in the county of Wilts, Esquire, which will bears date the twelfth day of October, one thousand eight hundred and nine " Whereas I, the said Paul Cobb Methuen, have, in and by my said will, with respect to the sum of fifteen thousand pounds, the money by my marriage settlement stipulated to be set apart as the portions of my younger children, directed that the same should be equally divided between such of my daughters as shall be living at my decease (except my eldest daughter now the wife of Lieutenant General De Gtey), and I have also by my said will directed Frederic Lord Boston, and Sir Thomas Gooch, Baronet, trustees, in my said will named, to raise out of my personal estate and effects, after payment of my funeral expences, debts, and legacies, the sum of six thousand pounds, In trust to pay the same to all and every my daughter and daughters lawfully begotten or to be begotten (except my said eldest daughter Matilda De Grey) who shall [418] be living at the time of my decease or bom afterwaids in equal shares 2 2HI1L. BCC. 9. METHUEN V. METHUEN 1187 if more than oae; and if but one to such only daughter at the days and times therein-mentioned. And I did also in and by my said will further direct that the interest and dividends of the said sura of siz thousand pounds should be by the trustees in my said will named applied for and towards the maintenance, education, and benefit of my said daughters until their respective portions became payable. Now in addition to and for a further provision for my daughters Gertrude Grace, Catherine Matilda, and Gecilia Penelope Methuen, and also for my said daughter Matilda De Grey, and likewise as and for a further provision for my dear wife Matilda Methuen, I do hereby further direct the said Frederic Lord Boston and Sir Thomas Gooch to raise out...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Sangha, Sangha v Sangha
...outside the confines of the will in question. This is well established law: see the statement of Sir John Nicholl in Methuen v Methuen (1817) 2 Phil 416 at 426, cited by Lord Wilberforce in re Resch's Will Trusts [1969] 1 AC 514 at 547D, that: “In the court of probate the whole question is ......
-
Re Doran
...Goods of Lane (1864) 33 L.J.P.M. & A. 185. In re Lewis Goronwy v. Richards [1942] Ch. 424; [1942] 2 All E.R. 365. Methuen v. Methuen (1817) 2 Phillim 416. In re Resch's Will Trusts [1969] 1 A.C. 514; [1968] 3 W.L.R. 1153; [1967] 3 All E.R. 915. In Re Rowland, decd. [1963] Ch. 1. Smith v. Cr......
-
O'Leary v Douglass
...129. Birks v. BirksENR 4 Sw. & Tr. 23. Moore v. De la TorreENR 1 Phill. 375. Colvin v. Frazer 2 Hagg. Ecc. Cas. 266. Methuen v. MethuenENR 2 Phill. 416. Masterman v. Maberly 2 Hagg. Ecc. Cas. 235. Henfrey v. Henfrey 4 Moo. P. C. C. 29. Heming v. ClutterbuckENR 1 Bligh (N. S.), 479. Strickla......
-
Reeves v Reeves
...words, influenced his construction.—[Rep.] (1) L. R. 1 P. & D. 57, 62. (2) I. R. 6 Eq. 332, 334. (3) [1898] P. 21. (4) [1902] P. 110. (5) 2 Phill. 416. (6) L. R. 5 P. D. (7) [1905] P. 66. (8) [1907] P. 125. (9) 2 Curt. 799. (1) 2 Phill. 416. (2) I. R. 6 Eq. 332. (3) 9 Moo. P. C. 131. (4) 1 ......