Miller v Miller et Al'
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1735 |
| Date | 01 January 1735 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 24 E.R. 1099
SIR JOSEPH JEKYLL, MASTER OF THE ROLLS.
See Walter v. Hodge, 1818, 2 Swans. 98.
3 P. WMS 356. MILLER V. MILLER 1099 [356] de teem. S. trinitatis, 1735. Case 95.-miller v. miller et al'. [1735.] [See Walter v. Hodge, 1818, 2 Swans. 98.] Sir Joseph Jekyll, Master of the Rolls. 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 356, pi. 24 ; 575, pi. 6. One having by his will given his wife £600 in money, on his death-bed ordered his servant to deliver to his wife, then present, two bank notes, payable to bearer, amounting to £600, saying, he had not done enough for his wife'; this gift is additional, and shall not be construed a payment of the former legacy in the testator's lifetime. One having a wife and a son that was his only child, two days before his death made his will, giving thereby to his wife £150 per annum, in long exchequer annuities, during her widowhood. After which the same day he made a codicil, by which he gave to his said wife a further exchequer annuity and £600 in money, to be paid her immediately after his death. Subsequent to this, and about an hour before his death, the testator having called to his servant to reach him his pocket-book, took thereout two bank notes for £300 each, and another note for £100-(not being a cash note, or payable to bearer), all which notes he ordered his servant to deliver to his wife (then present) adding, that he had not done enough for her. But the wife for some time declined taking these, having, as she said, enough already, and for that it would injure their son, who [357] was the residuary legatee in the will. Nevertheless, at length she was prevailed on by her husband to accept of the two bank notes, and also the other note. After which the testator by word of mouth gave her his coach and a pair of his coach-horses, bidding three witnesses then present take notice of it, and that he was in his senses, who accordingly made a memorandum thereof in writing. On a bill brought in the name of the infant son by his prochein amy, against the widow and the executors, for an account of the testator's personal estate, it was insisted on behalf of the plaintiff, that since by the codicil a legacy of £600 was given to the wife, payable immediately after the testator's death, the delivery of these two bank notes amounting to just the sum of £600, was a payment of such legacy in the testator's lifetime; and with regard to the other note for £100, which was not payable to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooke v Darwin
...v. Pye (5 Yes. 350, n.); Eden v. Smyth (5 Ves. 341); Flower v. Marten (2 Myl. & Or. 459); Major v. Major (1 Drew. 165); Miller v. Miller (3 P. Wms. 356); Duffield v. Elmes (1 Bligh (N. S.) 497). Mr. Lloyd, in reply. Nov. 14. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. When the case was firs......
-
Walter v Hodge
...separate use of his wife." The cases cited on the former argument seem to have proceeded on a contrary supposition. In Miller v. Miller (3 P. Wms. 356), Sir Joseph Jekyll says, " The gift of the 000 was a donatio causa mortis, which operates as such, though made to a wife, for it is in natu......
-
Veal v Veal
...of a ilonatio mortis causA. Mr. R. Palmer and Mr. Southgate, for Mary Masleu. The decision of Sir Joseph Jekyll in Miller v. Miller (3 Peere Williams, 356), that a note not payable to bearer could riot be the subject of a donatio -mortis causa, because " no property [304] therein could pass......
-
Ward v Turner
...Jones v. Selby, Precedents in Chan. 300; Hedges v. Hedges, ibid. 269; Snellgrove v. Bailey, March 1744; 3 Atk. 214; Miller v. Miller, 3 P. Wms. 356). Then I come to the question, whether the delivery of the three receipts is a delivery of the thing : I am of opinion it is not, and find no a......