Le Neve v Le Neve

[645] Case 253.-fonereau versus foneeeau, August 5, 1748. S. G. 1 Ves. 118.-A devise to C. F. of 1000 when he attains 25, and the-executors empowered to lay it out on securities, and pay the interest thereof towards the infant's education, as also a part of the principal to put him apprentice, and the remainder to be paid him at 21, and not before ; the legatee died at 19, and the father applies to have the securities transferred to him. The time of 25 years is put only to postpone the payment, and vesting of the legacy, and the father as the representative of the son intitled to it. A devise to Claudius Fonereau, when he shall have attained the age of twenty-five years, of one thousand pounds, which the testator empowered his four sons his executors, guardians, and trustees of the will, to lay out on such securities as .they shall think fit, and the interest or income thereof to be for or towards the education of the infant as they should think fit, as also part of the principal to put him apprentice, and the remainder to be paid him when he should have attained his age of twenty-five, and not before. A petition by the father, the representative of the legatee, who died at nineteen, to have the securities transferred to him. Lord Chancellor, The question is, whether the time of twenty-five years is put in, in order to postpone the vesting of the legacy, or only to postpone the payment of it ? I am of opinion it is only to postpone the payment. It is true, there is a distinction where a legacy is given to one at his age of twenty-one, there it is not vested; but where it is to him, to be paid at twenty-one, it is vested; this distinction now is absolutely settled. (Vide Steadman v. Palling, ante [3 Atk.], 427.) But there are cases where when a testator gives interest in the mean time, he gives a property in the principal, unless something arises on the face of the will to take off the force of it.(l) Lord Hardwicke then read the will, and said, if the words when he shall have attained twenty-five, had been left out, and it had been, I give to Claudius Fonereau a thousand pounds, which I empower my executors, &c., to lay out at interest, and apply for his education, and to pay the residue at twenty-five, this would be annexed to the payment only. There is a direction for disposal of part of the principal to put him out apprentice ; for though the word is empower, yet it is obligatory upon executors to lay out one thousand pounds upon securities, and they may, if they please, take the greatest part of the principal for this purpose, [646] This is something like the case in Lord King's time, of The Attorney General and Hall (8 Vin. 103, pi. 50), where the testator gave a legacy to one for life, and so much as he did not dispose of, gave to a charity ; it was held the legatee might dispose of the whole; so here, if for the legatee's benefit, they might take almost the whole to place him out apprentice ; as if, for instance, they should put him to a Turkey merchant, where they insist upon a large sum with an apprentice. He directed the securities to be transferred to the father, who is the representative of the legatee. (Beg. Lib. A. 1747, fol. 521.) If a legacy be devised to A. to be paid at twenty-one, and interest is given, the ecclesiastical court will decree payment immediately, the interest being for delay of payment; but if to A. to be paid at twenty-one, without giving interest, then interest 1172 LE NEVE V. LE NEVE 3 ATK. 647. will not accrue till the time comes at which the person would have been twenty-one, if living. (Vide Heath v. Perry, 3 Atk. 102.) [ (1) So Collins v. Metcalfe, 1 Vern. 462. Cave v. Cave, 2 Vern. 508. Stapleton v. Cheele, 2 Vern. 673; Pre. Cha. 318, S. C. Clobberie's case, 2 Vent. 342. Faw v. Clarke, ante, 1 [Affc.] vol. 512. Neale v. Willis, Barn. Cha. Rep. 43. Hubert v. Parsons, 2 Fes. 263. GVeew v. Pigroi!, 1 .Bra C% z. Eep. 103. Hoath v. ffoe*, 2 Bro. Cha. Rep. 3. Walcott v. Hall, 2 .Bro. C7ia. Rep. 305. Dodson v. fiat/, 3 .Bro. C%a. _Rp. 404. Whether maintenance is equivalent to the giving of interest, vide Pulsford v. Hunter, 3 .Bro. Cha. Rep. 416. Atkins v. Hiccocks, ante, 1 [AM;.] vol. 501.)

le neve v. le neve, Dec. 9,1747. [S. C. 2 Wh. & T. L. 0. (7th ed.) 175. See Rollandv. Hart, 1871, L. E. 6 Ch. 683 ; Vane v. Vane, 1872, L. R. 8 Oh. 392, n.; Agra Bank Ltd. v. Barry. 1874, L. R. 7 H. L. 156; Bradley v. Riches, 1878, 9 Ch. D. 196. Distinguished, Greaves v. Tofield. 1880, 14 Oh. D. 568, 571. See Kettlewell v. Watson, 1882, 21 Ch. D. 705 ; ;894 LB NEVE V. LE NEVE 1 VES. SEN. 65. Northern Counties of England Insurance Company v. Whipp, 1884, 26 Ch. D. 487; Manners v. Mew, 1885, 29 Ch. D. 728; Be Weir, Hollingworth v. Willing, 1888, 58 L. T. 795.] Notice to an attorney of a prior conveyance unregistered will postpone a conveyance for the benefit of the principal which has been registered. Notice to agent is notice to a party. (Vide 1 Ves. sen. 61. Such notice must, however, be in the same transaction. Fitzgib. 207; 2 Atk. 242 ; 3 Atk. 294...