Neighbour v Thurlow
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 February 1860 |
| Date | 21 February 1860 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 54 E.R. 278
ROLLS COURT
See Dowling v. Dowling, 1865, L. R. 1 Eq. 447.
278 NEIGHBOUR V. THUKLOW 28 BEAV. 33. [33] neighbour v. thurlow. Feb. 21, 1860. [See Bowling v. Bowling, 1865, L. R. 1 Eq. 447.] A bequest to A. for life, with a gift over, if he die without leaving issue, gives no interest by implication to the issue. A testator gave his residue to his three children " for their natural lives, viz., they to have the interest during their natural lives, and if any die without leaving issue, in that case to return again for the benefit of his grandchildren." Held, that the three children took during their joint lives and the life of the survivors and survivor; and secondly, that their children took no interest by implication, so that if the three children all died leaving issue, there would be an intestacy after the death of the survivor. The testator died in 1839. He had four children, viz.:-Thomas Thurlow, Christiana Ansell, John Thurlow and Ann Ostell. By his will, dated in 1838, he bequeathed an annuity of 60 to his widow " for her natural life and then to return to his family." He gave unto his daughter Christiana Ansell 2000, and a legacy of 1000 to his son John, and 3000 to his daughter Ann Ostell, "for (sic) natural life, viz., the interest of the above sum, but if she should (sic) no issue the said 3000 to return to my family again." After other gifts which are immaterial, he proceeded as follows :- " I likewise give unto each of my grandchildren 100, it may be to bring them up or put them forward, as it may happen and my executors think best. The rest of wij property I leave unto my daughter C. Ansell, my sons John and Tfumas Thurlow, for tluiir natural lives, viz., they to have the interest during their natural lives, and if any die uithout leaving issue, in that case to return again for the benefit of my grandchildren, share and share alike." The state of the testator's family was, at present, as follows :-His son Thomas was living and had four chil-[34]-dren:-Christiana was living and had one child; John died in 1859 leaving four children, and Ann Ostell was still living. The question arose on the death of John as to the effect of the residuary gift. The children of the son John Thurlow contended that they were entitled in possession to one-third of the residue. The Defendants Thomas Thurlow and Christiana contended that they were entitled to receive the income of the whole residue, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walmsley v Foxhall
...death of the survivor the fund is given over as a whole. Thus far it is clear that there would be cross-remainders ; Neighbour v. Thurlow (28 Beav. 33). The proviso alone raises a ground for argument. Now there are benefits given by the will sufficient to satisfy the terms of the proviso, a......
-
Champ v Champ and Others
...v. PringleENR 22 Beav. 631. In re Rawlin's Trusts 45 Ch. Div. 299. Kinsella v. CaffreyUNK 11 Ir. Ch. Rep. 154. Neighbour v. ThurlowENR 28 Beav. 33. Ranelagh v. RanelaghENR 12 Beav. 200. Sparks v. RestalENR 24 Beav. 218. Green v. WardENR 1 Russ. 262. Gardner v. Sheldon Tud. L. Cas. 625. Hone......
-
James Parker (Devisee of Barrow), - Appellant; Edward Tootal, - Respondent
...v. Fox (Cas. temp. Talb. 262); Gardiner v. Shelden (Freem. 11); [154] Eanelagh v. Banelagh (12 Beav. 200); Neighbour v. Thurlow (28 Beav. 33); and Barnet v. Barnet (29 Beav. 239), were also cited. Mr. Manisty replied.-The objection to the claimant's title on account of the death of Mrs. Bar......
-
Alder v Lawless
...by reason of the death of Brittania Alder in the testator's lifetime] Mr. W. Pearson, for the Plaintiff, cited Neighbour v. Thurlouo (28 Beav. 33). Mr. Jno. Pearson, for the executors. the master of the eolls [Sir John Eomilly]. I think it clear that the Plaintiff is entitled. English Repo......