Mores' Trust
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 November 1851 |
| Date | 04 November 1851 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 68 E.R. 885
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
[171] In the Matter of mores'trust. August 7, Nov. 4, 1851. By a will property was given to trustees to apply the rents, interest and proceeds for the maintenance of the testator's sou Edward for his life, and not to be paid to any person under an assignment by or execution against the son; and after the decease of the son for the two daughters:of the testator absolutely. By a codicil it was declared that, in case of assignment by Edward, the trustees should stand possessed of the property upon trust for the daughters of the testator, in the same manner and form as declared by his will in the event of the death of Edward. By another codicil the testator gave 600 stock to Edward, in addition to what he had left him by his will, subject to the same controlling powers and restrictions as were appointed by the will; and he gave a like sum to his son William, subject to the like control, " and to the survivor of them, and in the event of both their deaths " for the benefit of the said daughters. Held, that the true construction of the second codicil was, that, in the event of the death :of either of the legatees, both the legacies of stock should go to the survivor, .and not that on the death of either his legacy should go to the survivor, which would cut down an absolute gift into a life interest. That, although in one codicil the words "in the event of the death of Edward" meant upon the death of Edward, it did not follow that the words in another codicil "in, 886 in ee mokes' teust ioHARE.m. the event of both their deaths " meant upon both their deaths; for one expression was applied to a life interest and the other to a capital sum: that the period of survivorship must be referred to the period of distribution, namely, the death of the testator: that, therefore, Edward, having survived the testator, took the legacy of stock absolutely. The rule that added legacies are subject to the same conditions as the legacies to which they are added is not applicable to the case, inasmuch as the application of the rule would alter the terms of the additional gift. And whether the rule applies to any cases except where the original legacy is absolute or defeasible in the party to whom the additional legacy is given-quaere. The provisions in the Wills Act against the lapse of legacies given to children, renders it necessary for a testator, intending that a legacy to one child shall go over to another in the event of the death of the first legatee, to express that meaning by his will. The testator, by his will, dated the 19th of February 1829, after bequeathing some leasehold premises to trustees, upon trust to pay the rents to his daughter Catherine for her life for her separate use; and, after her decease, upon trust for her children who should be living at the time of her death: and, in default of such issue, upon trust [172] for her executors or administrators, devised and bequeathed to the same trustees a freehold messuage at Peckham, and a policy of insurance on his life, upon trust to invest the money to be received upon the policy, and to pay and apply the rents and profits, interest, dividends and .proceeds of the freehold messuage, and of one moiety of the monies to be produced from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooney v Nicholls
...Ch. Div. 561. Attree v. AttreeELRL. R. 11 Eq. 280. Mannox v. GreenerELRL. R. 14 Eq. 456. Day v. CroftENR4 Beav. 561. In re More's Trust.ENR10 Hare 171. Windus v. Windus 6 D. M. & G. 562. Smyth v. Smyth 8 Ch. Div. 561. In Kellett v. KellettENR 3 Dow P. C. 248. Hamilton v. Foot I. R. 6 Eq. 57......
-
Wilson v Mount
...& B. 82, n.); King v. Hake (9 Yes. 438); Perfect v. Curzan (5 Madd. 462); [294] Maitlaiul v. Chalie (6 Madd. 243); In re Mores' Trust (10 Hare, 171); Oohen v. WaUy (15 Sim. 318). In a case of doubtful construction upon the whole instrument, the Court leans to that which will include childre......
-
Ingham v Ingham. Daly v Daly
...Edwards v. EdwardsENR 15 Beav. 357. O'Mahoney v. BurdettELR L. R. 7 H. L. 388. Ingram v. SouttenELR L. R. 7 H. L. 408. Re More's TrustENR 10 Hare, 171. Randfield v. RandfieldENR 8 H. L. C. 225. Edwards v. EdwardsENR 15 Beav. 361. Schenk v. AgnewENR 4 k. & J. 405. Lord Douglads v. Chalmer 2 ......
-
Mann v Fuller
...that V.-C. xiv.-9* 266 BIDGWAY V. SNEYD KAY, 626. the mistaken reference to the former legacy will not cut it down. In re More's Trust (10 Hare, 171) shews that an executory limitation of the latter legacy to George Sargeant's children cannot be implied. Mr. Messiter, Mr. Keilly and Mr. Fan......