Nash v Morley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 June 1842 |
| Date | 10 June 1842 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 49 E.R. 545
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 11 L. J. Ch. 336; 6 Jur. 520. See Thomas v. Howell, 1874, L. R. 18 Eq. 208.
S BEAT. 177. NASH V. MORLEY 545 [177] nash v. morley. June 2, 10, 1842. [S. C. 11 L. J. Ch. 336; 6 Jur. 520. See Thomas v. Hmoell, 1874, L. E. 18 Eq. 208.] A gift to be divided "among poor pious persons male or female, old or infirm, as the executors see fit, not omitting large and sick families if of good character," is a valid charitable bequest; the word " poor" extending through the whole sentence. Where trustees have an option to apply funds to purposes which, though liberal or benevolent, are not such as are in this Court understood to be charitable, the trust cannot be executed here. Thus, the Court cannot execute a trust for private charity. A bill was filed by one of several trustees of a charitable gift, the validity of which was disputed, against the co-trustee, who had refused to act, and the next of kin of the testator, to have it executed. The trustees had accepted the trust. Held, that the proceeding was not improper, and that the Plaintiff was not bound to apply to the Attorney-General to proceed by information. John Wilkinson, the testator in this cause, by his will, dated the 20th of April 1831, directed part of his estate to be laid out in the funds, and he thereupon proceeded and expressed himself as follows :-" And that my executors hereafter named, and their heirs and assigns do receive the interest thereof, half-yearly, and divide it among poor pious persons male or female, old or infirm, as (hey see Jit, not omitting large awl sick families if of good character." The testator made a codicil, dated the 29th of July 1833, but he did not thereby alter the nature of the bequest in his will to poor pious persons. After the testator's death, doubts arose respecting the legal effect and construction of the will and [178] codicil, particularly aa to the effect or sufficiency of the charitable bequest " to poor pious persons," and also, particularly, as to the liability of the charitable bequest to make up the deficiency of the estate to pay a legacv of 10,000 bequeathed by the codicil, and two other legacies of 10,000 and 2000. Opinions of counsel were taken on the subject, which were in favour of the sufficiency of the charitable bequest, but considered that the fund made charitable by the will, was liable to make good any deficiency of the residue of the testator's estate to pay legacies. Under these circumstances, and to remove those doubts, and to prevent delay atid expense in giving full effect to the charitable and other trusts of the will, the widow and next of kin of the testator executed deeds dated in September 1833 ; and thereby they confirmed the will and codicil, and released their interest in the estate; to the intent that the charitable bequest and the other trusts of the will and codicil might be performed and carried into execution by William Nash, John Morley, and Jacob Wilkinson, as the executors and trustees thereof: " it being the clear intent and desire of all thei parties, to enable the said William Nash, John Morley, and Jacob Wilkinson to apply, dispose of, and distribute the said personal estate and effects (after paying debts)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Attorney-General (New South Wales) v Adams
-
Loscombe v Wintringham
...benefit of the native inhabitants, Mitford v. Pieynolds, 1 Phillips, 185 ; " poor pious persons, male and female," &c., Nash v. Morley, 5 Beav. 177 ; for erecting au hospital for persons "sick of the smallpox, or any other infectious distemper," Attorney-General v. Kell, 2 Beav. 575 ; a beq......
-
Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Gloucester v Osborn and Another
...v. The Bishop of Durham (9 Ves. 399; 10 Ves. 522), Doe v. Aldridge (4 T. Rep. 264), Sandford v. Eaikes (1 Meriv. 646), Nash v. Morley (5 Beav. 177),' Kendal v. Granger (5 Beav. 300), Ellis v. Selby (1 Sim. 352; 1 Myl. and C. 286), Williams v. Kershaw (5 Clark and Fin. Ill ra.), and the Inco......
-
Wicker v Hume
...persons as the executors might think fit; which left it entirely doubtful whether anything charitable was intended. So in Nash v. Morley (5 Beav. 177), where the devise was for the benefit of " poor pious persons, male or female, old or infirm, as the executors see fit, not omitting large a......