Palmer v Simmonds
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 March 1854 |
| Date | 07 March 1854 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 61 E.R. 704
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 2 W. R. 313. See Curnick v. Tucker, 1874, L. R. 17 Eq. 322; Le Marchant v. Le Marchant, 1874, L. R. 18 Eq. 417; Fordham v. Speight, 1875, 23 W. R. 783.
Precatory Words. Trusts.
704 PALMER V. SIMMONDS 2 DREWKY 221 [221] palmer, v. simmonds. March 7, 1854. [S. C. 2 W. R 313. See CWmcfc v. Tucker, 1874, L.'E. 17 Eq. 322; Le Marchant v. Le Marchant, 1874, L. E. 18 Eq. 417; Fordham v. Speight, 1875, 23 W. R. 783.] Precatory Words. Trusts. Testatrix gave, her residuary estate to A., his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns for ever, for his own use and benefit, as she had full confidence in him that, if he should die without lawful issue, he would, after providing for his widow during her life, leave the bulk of her said residuary estate to B,, C., D. and E. equally. Held, that this language did not describe the subject of gift with sufficient certainty to create a precatory trust. The will of Henrietta Eosco contained the following gifts :- " I give to my nephew, the Eev. Thomas Harrison, and my grandnephew, William Fountain Simmonds, their executors, administrators and assigns, the sum of 2500, upon trust, to invest the same in their names in the public stocks or funds of Great Britain, and to pay and apply the dividends and annual produce thereof in or towards the maintenance and education or otherwise for the benefit of Henrietta Eosco Markham, the daughter of Eobert Markham, of Laceby, in the county of Lincoln, until she shall attain the age of twenty-one years; and in the event of her attaining the age of twenty-one, then in trust, to assign and transfer the principal of the said trust fund to the said Henrietta Eoseo Markham; but if she shall not attain twenty-one, then in trust to divide the principal of the said trust fund equally between them the said Thomas Harrison and William Fountain Simmonds, for their own use and benefit. I give to the said Thomas Harrison and William Fountain Simmonds, their executors, administrators and assigns, the sum of 800, upon trust, to invest the same in their names in the public stocks or funds of Great Britain, and to pay the dividends and annual produce thereof to my grandnephew Thomas Elrington Simmonds, of Laceby, in the county of Lincoln, for his life, and after his decease then as to the capital of the said trust fund, in trust, to assign and transfer the same unto and equally between the children or child, if only one, of the said Thomas...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Attorney-General v The Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council
...matter, a trust cannot be duly executed if it was uncertain what property is or is not subject to the trust (see, eg, Palmer v Simmonds (1854) 2 Drew 221). With regard to objects, the settlor of the Quistclose trust would certainly be a sufficiently certain beneficiary. However the requirem......
-
Arthur Pageitt Greene and Godfrey Greene, Infants, v John Greene and Others
...2 Sim. N. S. 267. Barnes v. Grant 2 Jur. N. S. 1127; 26 L. J. N. S. Ch. 92. Knight v. KnightENR 3 Beav. 172. Palmer v. SimmondsENR 2 Drew. 221. Cox v. CoxENR 27 Beav. 301. Shovelton v. ShoveltonENR 32 Beav. 144. Bonsal v. KinnearENR 2 Giff. 195. Briggs v. Penny 3 M. & Gor. 546. Moriarty v. ......
-
Shovelton v Shovelton
...which was too uncertain for the Court to act on. He cited Fox v. Fox (27 Beav. 301); Webb v. Wook (2 Sim. (N. S.) 267); Palmer v. Simmons (2 Drew. 221). the master of the eolls [Sir John Eomilly]. I think that this is a precatory trust. I cannot get over the cases first cited. Palmer v. Sim......