Morley v Linkson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 May 1843 |
| Date | 06 May 1843 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 67 E.R. 235
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 12 L. J. Ch. 372; 7 Jur. 938. See Bellairs v. Bellairs, 1874, L. R. 18 Eq. 514. For subsequent proceedings, see [1895], 1 Ch. 449.
[570] morley v. eennoldson. morley v. linkson. April 4, 19, 20, May 6, 1843. [S. C. 12 L. J. Ch. 372; 7 Jur. 938. See BeUairs v. Bellairs, 1874, L. B. 18 Eq. 514. For subsequent proceedings, see [1895], 1 Ch. 449.] The testator bequeathed the residue of his personal estate to his daughter upon trust for her maintenance and support until she attained twenty-one or married with the consent of his trustees under that age, and upon her attaining such age or her marriage, for her separate use, with remainder to her children; and in case of her death without issue, he bequeathed the same to certain legatees in remainder. The testator afterwards declared by a codicil that, in consequence of a nervous òdebility, his daughter was unfit for the control of herself, and his will was that she .should not marry, and in case of her marriage or death, he gave the property he .had bequeathed to her over to the same legatees in remainder. 236 MQBLEY V. EEHNOLDSON 2 HARE, 571. Held, that the limitation over by the codicil, being in general restraint of marriage, was void as to the life interest of the daughter. That the Court would not inquire into the fact of whether the testator was mistaken or not with reference to his daughter's health or capacity. Whether the interest in remainder bequeathed to the children of the daughter by the will was revoked by the codicil; gucere. The legatees of two-sixths of the residuary fund, expressed by the codicil to take in remainder in case of the marriage or death of the daughter, being out of the jurisdiction, the Court made the declaration of right with respect to the other four-sixth parts only. W. Eennoldson, by his will, dated the 4th of November 1834, gave and bequeathed all his household goods and furniture, plate, glass, linen, china, books, prints and pictures, unto and to be equally divided between his wife, Emma, and his daughter Margaret; and he also gave to his said wife and daughter Margaret the sum of £150 each for mourning, to be paid to them within two calendar months next after his decease ; the said legacy to his daughter to be paid and applied to her use by his executors if she had not then attained twenty-one. And he gave his leasehold house in Turner Street unto his wife, and directed that she should provide a [571] suitable apartment therein for the residence of his said daughter Margaret, so long as she should remain single and unmarried, and desired to live with his wife, to whose care he strongly recommended her. And he gave and bequeathed the residue of his personal estate to trustees therein named, upon trust to pay and apply certain sums for the benefit of his said wife and his daughter Emma, and the issue of his daughter Emma, and upon further trust to pay and apply all, or a competent part (in the discretion of his trustees) of,.the residue of the annual proceeds of the trust monies in the maintenance and support of his daughter Margaret, until she should attain twenty-one, or be married under that age with the consent of the said trustees, or the greater number of them, in such manner as the trustees should think fit; and the remainder of such annual proceeds, from time to time, to be added to the principal ; and immediately after his daughter Margaret should attain the age of twenty-one, or be married under that age with such consent as aforesaid, then upon trust to pay the interest and dividends of the said residue of the trust monies unto his daughter Margaret, for her sole use.and benefit, without power of anticipation; and after her decease he directed that the residue of the said trust monies should be in trust for all and every her child and children, as therein mentioned. And in case his said daughter should die without leaving any such child or children, he directed that his said trustees should stand possessed of the said trust monies, or so much thereof as remained undisposed of, upon trust to pay and transfer three-fourth parts thereof unto his daughter Emma and his nephews, William Eennoldson and John Dalton, equally, and the other fourth part thereof unto his niece, Mary Harvey, for her separate use. By a codicil, dated the 15th of February 1836, the [572] testator revoked the last-mentioned ultimate bequest of the residue of his personal estate in fourths, in case of the death of his daughter Margaret without issue, and bequeathed one moiety of the same to his daughter Emma, and the other moiety to his said nephews and niece ; and he appointed the Defendant, R. Linkson, executor and trustee, instead of one of. the first-named executors who was dead. The testator made a second codicil, dated the 30th of October 1836, upon which the question in the cause arose : this codicil was as follows :-" In consequence of the continued nervous debility under which my daughter Margaret is labouring (originally occasioned by a fright at the age of five years), and considering that it totally unfits her for the control of herself, I deem it advisable, for her better protection and of the several legacies and bequests to her by my .said will, to direct that my trustees and 'executors shall apply all monies bequeathed to my said daughter for her use and benefit, in such manner as they shall think fit, and the most for her comfort and welfare, and my will and mind is that for the reason aforesaid my said daughter Margaret shall not at any time contract matrimony; and in case of the marriage or death of my said daughter Margaret, then I direct that the trustees and executors for 2 HAKE, 573: M0RLEY V. RENNOLDSON 237 the time being shall stand possessed of all the residuary stocks, funds and securities, which I have bequeathed to her, as mentioned in my said will, and pay and transfer one-half part thereof unto my daughter Emma, and the other half part thereof unto and equally between my nephews William Rennoldson and John Dalton, and my niece Mary Harvey." The testator died in February 1837, leaving all the said legatees surviving. The executors, Morley, Sad-[573]-grove, Graham and Linkson, proved the will. After providing for the legacies there was a residue of about .£5000 three per cent, stock. On the 9th of January 1842 the testator's daughter Margaret intermarried with R. Linkson, one of the executors. The bill was filed by the other three executors to obtain the declaration of the Court on the rights of the parties, as they might be affected by .the marriage of Margaret, and that the trusts might be performed under the direction of the Court. The Defendants were the testator's widow, his daughter Emma, an infant, R. Linkson and Margaret, his wife, William Rennoldson, John Dalton and Mary Harvey and her husband. The Defendant, William Rennoldson, submitted that the testator's residuary estate, on the marriage of his daughter, became payable to the other persons named in the second codicil: or, if Margaret had not attained twenty-one when she married, and had married without the said consent, then that only a part of the interest of the residue ought to be applied for her benefit during her life or her minority, or at all events that he was entitled to one-third of a moiety of the residue, in the event of the death of Margaret without children. The testator's widow and his daughter Emma, an infant, submitted their rights to the Court. John Dalton and Mary Harvey and her husband were out of the jurisdiction, and did not appear in the cause. The Defendants, R. Linkson and Margaret, his wife, submitted that the second codicil did not operate as an alteration of the benefits given to Margaret and her children by the will; and that the codicil was made when the testator was at a very advanced age, and suffering from acute disease, and under a mistaken notion of [574] the state of his daughter's health; and that neither then nor previously was she under any nervous debility unfitting her for the control of herself. They admitted that her health had been for a short time impaired by a fright when about five years old, but said that she very soon recovered from the effects of it. Jane Linkson, a child of R. Linkson and Margaret, his wife, born after the commencement of the suit, was made a party by supplemental bill. At the hearing, * Mr. Teed and Mr. Rogers, for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Romilly, for the Defendants, Linkson and wife, and their child. The testator has by the codicil attempted to impose an absolute restriction on the liberty of marriage, and to fortify it by a penalty. This the law does not permit: Low v. Peers (4 Burr. 2225; S. C., C. J. Wilmot's Cases, 364), Hartley v. Mice (10 East, 22). It is not necessary to contend that a party may not in some cases create a valid limitation of property until marriage, or that he may not alter his bounty upon that event; but in all cases it is always a question of intention whether the testator truly intends, on such an event, the benefit of the object in whose favor the legacy is limited over, or bond fide intends the simple performance of the condition, or whether his real object be to compel the celibacy of the legatee. In the former case the limitation may be good, in the latter it is invalid. Thus, "when on any condition, however restrictive of marriage, the legacy is given over to pious [575] uses, the intention of the party shall be deemed to regard those uses, and not to have aimed at the objectional E urpose of restraining marriage." (Per Lord Thurlow (Scott v. Tyler), 2 Dick. 722.) o, again, the testator may make the consent of another person to the marriage a lawful condition ò but if he requires the consent of a person whose interest it is to refuse, or who would unreasonably refuse, the condition is void. (Id. p. 720; S. C. (Scott v. Tyler), 2 Bro. C. C. 488.) The validity of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v Rosser
...Gobb (9 Sim. 615; S. C. 5 My. & Cr. 145), a case in which the defeasance was held bad notwithstanding a gift over; Marley v. Rennoldson (2 Hare, 570) ; Hartley v. Rice (10 East, 22). In many of the cases there is nothing to shew that the marriages restrained were not second marriages, and t......
-
Webb v Grace
...the judgment, the following authorities were also cited:- Low v. Peers (4 Burr. 2225), Lang v. Dennis (4 Burr. 2052), Morlty v. Rennoldsm (2 Hare, 570), Scott v. Tyler (2 Dick. 722), Harvey v. Aston (Comyn, 726), Hartley v. Bice (10 East, 22), Perry v. Lynn (9 East, 181), 5 Vin. Abr. 95, pi......
-
Heath v Lewis
...to the meaning, have the effect of changing the conditional bequest into a limitation 1 Sir James Wigram has, in Morky v. Rennoldson (2 Hare, 570), pointed out the difference between the civil 'law and our own on this subject, and he there refers to Lord Thurlow's judgment in Scott v. Tyler......
-
Newton v Marsden
...a man imposing a condition on his own wife. The same observation applies to the words of Vice-Chancel lor Wigram in Morley v. Rennoldson (2 Hare, 570); and the expressions of Lord Justice Knight Bruce, in Heath v. Lewis (3 De G. M. & G-. 954), do no more than imply what is admitted, that th......
-
The limits imposed upon freedom of testation by the boni mores: Lessons from Common Law and Civil Law continental) legal systems
...1 Ch 383; Re Edgar, Cohen v Edgar [1939] 1 All ER 635. 29 Long v Dennis (1767) 4 Burr 2052; Morley v Rennoldson, Morley v Linkson (1843) 2 Hare 570. 30 Cooke v Turner (1846) 15 M&W 727; Egerton v Earl of Brownlow (1853) 4 HL Cas 1. © Juta and Company (Pty) 2.1.2.2 Restriction of freedom of ......