Nanney v Williams
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 June 1856 |
| Date | 09 June 1856 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 1182
ROLLS COURT
See Hall v. Hall, 1873, L. R. 8 Ch. 436.
[452] nanney v. williams. June 2, 4, 9, 1856. [See Hall v. Hall, 1873, L. E. 8 Ch. 436.] A. B. made an irrevocable voluntary settlement of his estate in favour, amongst others, of a relative who acted as his solicitor. The Court considered that A. B. intended to reserve a power of revocation, but that the deed was in other respects unobjectionable. A. B. made his will, prepared by the same solicitor, making a general devise, but not revoking the settlement. The Court then held that it was the duty of the solicitor, when he prepared the will, specifically to have asked the testator whether he intended to revoke the deed, and not having done so, and it appearing to have been the intention of the testator that the estate should pass to his devisees, the Court decided, that although the deed would have been operative if A. B, had died intestate, yet that in the events which had happened, and as against all persons claiming under the settlement, the estate was subject to the trusts of the general devise contained in the will. A party in possession of an infant's estate, under a voidable deed, treated as his bailiff, and made to account for the rents for more than six years before the filing of the bill. The object of this bill was to cancel, at the suit of the heir and devisee of the settlor, a voluntary conveyance of an estate, called " the Yspytty estate," in the county of Denbigh, which was dated the 6th of November 1832. The documents and evidence were of a very voluminous character, and ifc is therefore necessary to compress the statement of the case, by adopting, as far as possible the conclusions to which the Court came upon the evidence. On this assumption, the material circumstances were as follows :- In 1829 the testator, the Rev. John Nanney, having no issue, by his first marriage, and being of the age of sixty-four, married Ann F. Fisher, and he had issue a daughter born in 1831, but who died in the same year. In the year 1832 the state of his family was as follows:-He had a wife, who was still a young woman, he had no children, and he had a younger brother, Sir William Wynn, on whom he had 2SBEAV.4M. NANNEY V. WILLIAMS 1183 voluntarily settled life annuities amounting in the whole to £1000 a year, and [463] a nephew Robert Chambre Vaughan (the son of a deceased sister), on whom he had settled an annuity of £800 a year. Besides real estate, which produced between £3000 and £4000 a year, he had also the Yspytty estate of the value of about £640 a year. His principal solicitor was the Defendant Mr. Williams, a relation by blood, who had been concerned for him from the year 1821, and with whom, from his boyhood, the testator had been on terms of intimate and affectionate friendship. In 1832 the testator wrote several letters to Mr. Williams, requesting him to meet him at Liverpool early in July. They accordingly met there, and remained together two or three days. The testator then verbally instructed Mr. Williams to prepare a deed to settle the Yspytty estate as after mentioned. A settlement was accordingly prepared in Mr. Williams's office in London by Mr. Searle, his clerk; Searle read over the draft to the testator, and afterwards read the engrossment to him at the time of its execution, but whilst reading the recital in the deed, which stated that the testator " was desirous of irrevocably settling " the estate, the testator objected to that word. The first syllable of the word "irrevocably" was then erased, and the deed was executed by the testator, containing the word "revocably." According to the evidence of Searle, " no explanation of the deed was at this time given to the testator, either by Mr. Williams or by himself," but after the deed was executed the testator said, " Well, Williams, I think I have done handsomely by you." Searle in his evidence also said that on the execution of the deed, " nothing was said about introducing a power of revocation. I never drew a revocable settlement before. I considered that it made no difference [464] whatever, whether it stood revocably or irrevocably ; it was no more binding on Mr. Nanney, if it stood as originally drawn, than it was when altered, if he chose, any more than if it had been in a will, and it had been said it was his irrevocable intention." This deed of settlement of the Yspytty estate was dated the 6th of November 1832, and was made between the testator of the first part, his brother Sir William Wynn of the second part, and a trustee of the third part. It recited the seisin of the testator, and that he was about to levy a fine of the estate, and " was desirous of revocably settling" the said estate, "in the manner thereinafter particularly mentioned, the uses of which the testator was then desirous of declaring." The indenture then witnessed that the testator, " in consideration of the natural love and affection " which he had to his brother Sir William Wynn, and " unto his kinsmen " Mr. Williams and Simon Hart Wynn, " and for other good causes and considerations," and in consideration of 10s. paid by the trustee, conveyed the Yspytty estate to the trustee in fee, to the use of the testator for his life [omitting the words, without impeachment of waste], with remainder [omitting all estates to the testator's issue] to his brother Sir William Wynn for his life, " without impeachment of or for any manner of waste ;" with remainder to the use of the first and other sons of Sir William Wynn in tail male; with remainder to the use of Mr. Williams for his life, without impeachment of waste; with remainder to the use of Simon H. Wynn for his life, without impeachment of waste; with remainder to the use of the second son of Robert Chambre Vaughan for his life, without impeachment of waste; with remainder to his first and other sons in tail male; with remainder to the use of the right heirs of the testator. The testator then [455] covenanted to levy a fine, which was to enure to the above uses, and he entered into absolute covenants with the trustee for the title of the estate, and for the quiet enjoyment thereof. Omitting the usual limitations to trustees to preserve, this was, in substance, the whole effect of the deed, for it contained none of the usual powers to lease, to jointure, to raise portions, &c. After this, the Plaintiff (the only son of the testator) was born on the 15th of July 1833, and the testator subsequently had a daughter who was born in 1835 and died in the following year. The testator's wife died in 1837, and the testator died in March 1838, leaving the Plaintiff, an infant, his heir. By his will, dated the 2d of January 1838, the testator devised all his real estates to the use of the Plaintiff for his life, without-impeachment of waste; with remainder to trustees during the life of the Plaintiff to preserve 1184 NANNEY V. WILLIAMS MBEAV.4M. contingent remainders; with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Way's Trusts; and The Act for Better Securing Trust Funds and for the Relief of Trustees
...in her mind at the time when she executed and retained it. If the solicitor had asked her, as he ought to have done, Nanney v. Williams (22 Beav. 452, 462); Forshaw v. Welsby (30 Beav, 243), whether she intended to bind herself absolutely or to have power to reToke the deed, she would have ......
-
Toker v Toker
...referred to, viz:-Hoghton v Hoghtan (15 Beav. 278); Cooke v. Lamotta (Ib. 234); Huffiienin v. Basehy (14 Ves. 273); Nanney v. frillmms (22 Beav. 452); Forshaw v. Wekby (30 Ib. 243), and Bentley v. Mackay (31 Ib. 143); and it was strongly urged on the part of the Appellant that, assuming, as......
-
Forshaw v Welsby
...(18 Ves. 481); Huguenin v. Baseley (14 Ves. 273); Cooke v. Lamotte (15 Beav. 234); Blackie v. Clark (15 Beav. 595); Nanney v. Williams (22 Beav. 452); Hobday v. Peters (28 Beav. 349); Hoghtm v. Horjhtm (15 Beav. 278); Cobbeit v. Brack (20 Beav. 524), were cited. the master of the rolls [Sir......
-
Anderson v Elsworth
...of revocation, was invalid, as it was not shewn that the effect of such an omission was explained to the settlor. In Nanney v. Williams (22 Beav. 452) the Master of the Eolls set aside a deed on that express ground; and, in the case of Forshaw v. Welsby, heard on the 20th of December 1860, ......