Milroy v Milroy
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 March 1844 |
| Date | 01 March 1844 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 60 E.R. 274
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 13 L. J. Ch. 266; 8 Jur. 234.
Will. Construction. Remoteness. Vesting.
[48] milroy v. milroy. Feb. 29, March 1, 1844. [S. C. 13 L. J. Ch. 266 ; 8 Jur. 234.] Construction. Remoteness. Vesting. Testator gave his real and residuary personal estate, in trust to pay an annuity to his nephew, and subject thereto, in trust for his daughter for life, remainder in trust to pay the income for the maintenance of all and every such child or children as she might leave at her decease, during his, her or their minority ; and when the youngest should have attained tw&nty-Jive, to pay, assign and transfer the income, together with the principal, to the children, the same to be divided equally between them, share and share alike ; but if any of them should die leaving a child or children who should attain twenty-one, then to pay and assign the share of such child to such his or their child or children ; and the testator then expressed his further H SIB. 49. MILEOY V. MILROY 275 will to ba that his trustees should, immediately after his nephew's decease, convey, release and assign all his freehold and leasehold estates unto the heir or heirs who sheuld be legally entitled thereto; and in case his daughter should leave no child or children, ar they should die under age and unmarried, then in trust to pay and assign the income, together with the whole residue, unto and equally between his next of kin. The daughter left five children living at her death, all of whom attained twenty-five. Held, that the trust for them was not void for remoteness, but that they took vested interests in the trust property on her mother's death. John Fry, by his will, dated the 30th June 1807, after directing all his just debts, funeral expenses and the charges of proving his will to be paid, and giving some specific legacies, gave and bequeathed as follows :-" I give and bequeath unto my son-in-law Thomas Milroy, and my friends Thomas Seymour and Augustine Hill, all those my several freehold and leasehold messuages or tenements, with the appurtenances thereto belonging, situate, lying and being in county of Middlesex or elsewhere, and also all and every my ready money, money in the funds, debts, goods, chattels and personal estate whatsoever and wheresoever due, owing or belonging to me at the time of my decease, by or from any person or persons whomsoever, to hold the same unto the said Thomas Milroy, Thomas Seymour and Augustine Hill, their heirs, executors and administrators, upon the trusts and to and for the several uses, ends, intents [49] and purposes hereinafter mentioned, that is to say, upon trust that they, my said trustees or the survivor of them, &c., do and shall, from time to time, during the natural life of my nephew, William Fry, son of my brother George Fry, receive the rents and issues and profits which shall accrue or arise from my said freehold and leasehold estates, and also shall and do, as soon as conveniently may be after my decease, collect, get in and receive all such debts, sum and sums of money as shall be due, owing, payable or belonging unto me at the time of my decease, and also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gummoe v Howes
...v. Munkettrick (1 Dru. & W. 84); Edwards v. Edwards (12 Beav. 97); Doe d. Player v. Nicholls (1 Barn. & Or. 336); Milroy v. Milroy (14 Sim. 48); Doe d. Gallmi v. Gallini (5 Barn. & Ad. 621, and 3 Ad. & E. 340); The Earl of Oxford y. Churchill (3 Ves. & B. 67); Goodright v. Pullyn (2 Ld. Ray......
-
Southern v Wollaston
...B. fol. 1086.) There is an immediate right to the income, but the payment of the capital is postponed until twenty-five, Milrwj v. Mib-oy (14 Sim. 48). The gift of the income for the maintenance might be good, though the bequest of the capital is too remote, Webb v. Kelly (9 Sim. 469), Hoam......
-
Read v Gooding
...if the substituted gift was void, the prior absolute gift to the parents remained. Saunders v. Vautier (Cr. & Ph. 240); Milroy v. Milroy (14 Sim. 48); Borastm's case (3 Eep. 19 a.); Doe d. Dolley v. Ward (9 Ad. & Ell. 582); Leake v. Itobinson (2 Mer. 363); Porter v. Fox (6 Sim. 485); James ......
-
Loftus v Stoney
...185. Dormer v. Phillips 3 Dr. 39. Doe v. Perratt; Lywood v. KimberENR 29 Beav. 38. Horsfield v. Ashton 1 W. R. 259. Milroy v. MilroyENR 14 Sim. 48. Burley's case 4 M. & Cr. 331. Curtis v. PriceENR 29 Beav. 288. Doe v. PerrattENR 29 Beav. 207. Counden v. ClarkeUNK 14 Ir. Ch. Rep. 262, 388. A......