Mitford v Reynolds
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 1842 |
| Date | 20 December 1842 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 41 E.R. 602
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S C 12 L J Ch. 40. For subsequent proceedings, see 16 Sim. 105; 17 L. J. Ch. 238; 12 Jur. 197. See cases in note to Loscombe v. Wintringham, 1850; 13 Beav. 89 (n.); Fisk v. Attorney-General, 1867, L. R. 4 Eq. 525; In re Taylor, 1888, 58 L. T. 541. Discussed and explained, In re Dean, 1889, 41 Ch. D. 552.
[186] mitford v. reynolds. Nao. 18, 19, 20, 1841; Dec. 8, 20, 1842. i* -i,[S- Cl 12 L- J- Ch. 40- For subsequent proceedings, see 16 Sim. 105; 17 L. J. Clu - cit 3&L 238; 12 Jur. 197. See cases in note to Loscombe\. Wintringham, 1850; 13 Beav. .! %./(A, 89 (n.); Fide v. Attorney-General, 1867, L. R. 4 Eq. 525 ; In re Taylor, 1888, 58 L. T. 541. Discussed and explained, In re Dean, 1889, 41 Ch. D. 552.] A testator, in disposing of " the property of which he should be possessed at hia death after payment of debts and expenses," made several specific and pecuniary bequests, and then directed his executors, amongst other things, to purchase and prepare for the ultimate deposit of his own body, and for the removal and deposit of the remains of his parents and sister then lying interred in a certain churchyard, a certain piece of nnconsecrated ground then belonging to another person, on which they were "to build a suitable, handsome, and durable monument, the expense to be met and provided from the surplus property that should remain after payment of the above legacies and bequests, &c." After which he gave " the remainder of his property to the Government of Bengal, to be applied to charitable, beneficial, and public works, at and in the city of Dacca in Bengal, for the exclusive benefit of the native inhabitants, in such manner as they and the Government might regard as most conducive to that end." Held, first, that the direction as to the monument was not a charge upon the residue, but a bequest of such integral part of the residue as would be necessary for carrying the direction into effect. Secondly, that even supposing that direction to be void, it did not invalidate the subsequent bequest to the Government, of Bengal, if otherwise valid, inasmuch as the sum necessary for carrying the direction as to the monument into effect was capable of being ascertained. Thirdly, that the bequest to the Government of Bengal was a good charitable bequest. Whether the direction as to the monument ia void, Qucere? Robert Mitford, the testator in this cause, had been for thirty years of his life in the civil service of the East India Company, during the greater part of which time he had resided at Dacca, in the presidency of Bengal. In the year 1828 he returned to this country, and was domiciled here at the time of his death, which took place in the year 1836. Being possessed of a very large personal estate, he made his will, dated the 21st of July 1835, which commenced in these words:--"The will last made by me was destroyed in consequence of circumstances that occurred in my family which, have totally changed the nature of the relations as they had previously subsisted, and, by a necessary result, any disposition towards the parties in the respect of their succession to the property, real and personal, of which I may be found to be possessed at my death, after the payment of all my just debts, necessary expenses, funeral charges, &c." The testator then [186] proceeded to make several specific and pecuniary bequests, after which he proceeded as follows:- 1 PH. 187. MITFORD V. REYNOLDS 603 " Sthly, In the event of my demise at any early period, I direct and enjoin the executors and administrators hereunto, to purchase and prepare for the ultimate deposit of my body, and also for the removal and deposit of the remains of my parents and sister, now lying interred in a vault in the churchyard of Chipping Ongar, in Essex, the mount that is contiguous, surrounded by a moat, which I understand to be the property at present of Mr. Evans, on the summit of which they will be pleased to cause the construction of a suitable and handsome as well as durable monument, fronting th& summit and sides of the mount with cedar and cypress trees, in a manner that may render it ornamental to the town, the expenses whereof for the purchase, the construction of the monument, &e., are to be met and provided from the surplus property that will and may be found after the payment of, and discharge shall have been made of, the above legacies and bequests, fec. And though aware that the Monument Mount may not be consecrated, I yet direct and expressly will and command, that this injunction for the place of final interment be absolutely attended to, and carried into instant effect and completion." " 9thly, I will, devise, give, and bequeath the remainder of my property, of whatsoever kind and description, and that may arise from the sale of my effects, after deducting the annual amount that will be requisite to defray the keep of my horses (which I will and direct be preserved as pensioners, and never, under any plea or pretence, to be used, rode, or driven, or applied to labour) to the G-overnment of Bengal, for the express purpose of that Government applying the amount to [187] charitable, beneficial, and public works at and in the City of Dacca in Bengal, the intent of such bequest and direction being, that the amount shall be applied exclusively to the benefit of the native inhabitants, in the manner they and the Government may regard to be most conducive to that end." In a subsequent part of his will the testator appointed Henry Revell Reynolds, jun., and Joseph William Thrupp, his executors. Shortly after the testator's death the bill was filed by his widow (partly as a, creditor against his estate under the trusts of her marriage settlement and of a separation deed which he had executed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Attorney-General of the Cayman Islands (Third Appellant) v Even Wahr-Hansen
...good of" a specific county ( Attorney-General v. Lord Lonsdale (1827) 1 Sim. 105) or for "charitable, beneficial, and public works" ( Mitford v. Reynolds (1842) 1 Ph. 185) or for "the benefit and advantage of Great Britain" ( Nightingale v. Goulburn (1847) 5 Hare 484) or "unto my country En......
-
Harding v R & C Commissioners
...country England”); iii) The same principle applies to a gift to a particular class of inhabitants within a locality: Mitford v Reynolds (1842) 1 Ph 185 (native inhabitants of Dacca); Goodman v Mayor of Saltash (1882) 7 App Cas 633 (freemen of the borough of Saltash); Re Mellody [1918] 1 Ch ......
-
Brisbane City Council v Attorney General for Queensland
...Petroleum Co. v. Hurd (1874) L.R. 5 P.C. 221, P.C. Lysons v. Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1945] N.Z.L.R. 738. Mitford v. Reynolds (1842) 1 Ph. 185. Morgan v. Wellington City Corporation [1975] 1 N.Z.L.R. 416. Murray v. Thomas [1937] 4 All E.R. 545. New Brunswick Railway Co. v. British and ......
-
Tito v Waddell (No. 2); Tito v Attorney General; Ocean Island (No. 2)
...Lydden and Co. Ltd. [1942] 2 K.B. 202. Low v. Bouverie [1891] 3 Ch. 82, C.A. Massey v. Davies (1794) 2 Ves.Jun. 317. Mitford v. Reynolds (1842) 1 Ph. 185. Moggridge v. Thackwell (1803) 7 Ves. 36. Nanwa Gold Mines Ltd., In re [1955] 1 W.L.R. 1080; [1955] 3 All E.R. 219. Nissan v. Attorney-Ge......
-
Trusts for Religious Purposes and the Question of Public Benefit
...ri t i e s(London: Sweet & Maxwell, 9thed, 2003)at [2- 057],although cf the unfortunate decision of LordLyndhurstLC in Mi tfordvReynolds (1842) 1 Ph 185.50 Vivisection case, n 3 above, 44^47 per LordWright;CoS, n 9 above,26^34.51 Vivisection case, n 3 above, 49 per LordWright;72^73 per Lord......