Pattison v Hawkesworth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 April 1847 |
| Date | 21 April 1847 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 626
ROLLS COURT
[375] pattison v. hawkesworth. April 21, 1847. A testator bequeathed to his widow a pecuniary legacy and a life annuity. Sh& survived him twenty-eight years, and, after her death, her executrix filed a bill for their recovery. No explanation was given of the circumstances, and no proof of any intermediate payment. The bill was dismissed on the ground of great laches. The testator in this case died in 1815, having, by his will, bequeathed to his-widow a legacy of £70, and an annuity of £25 for life. The Defendant, his son, waa. bis executor. The widow died in 1843, and, in 1844, the Plaintiff, her executrix, instituted this-suit to recover the £70, and arrears of the annuity of £25. [376] The Defendant, by his answer, stated that the assets had amounted to £3342, and that he had paid debts and legacies to the amount of £3891, and, amongst them, legacies to the amount of £3100 in full. He stated that the widow had lived and had been maintained by him and his brothers, and that he had advanced and paid to her, out of his own monies, various sums of money, of which he had kept no account, and which sums were not, at the time, expressly expended and advanced on account of the said annuity ; and he stated that the legacy had never been paid. The answer did not set up the Statute of Limitations. The Plaintiff entered into no evidence, and proved no payments on account of the aOBEAV.377. SMITH V. EARL OF EFFINGHAM 627 annuity or legacy, and she gave no explanation of the circumstances which had delayed the assertion of the widow is claim. Mr. Barrett, for the Plaintiff, contended that the Defendant was liable to pay the annuity and legacy at once, he having, by payment of the other legacies in full,, admitted asaets sufficient for that purpose : Barnard v. PwmfreU (5 Myl. & Cr. 63). Mr. Kindersley and Mr. Acworth, for the Defendant. Upwards of thirty years-have elapsed since the right accrued. The Plaintiff' is barred by the Statute of Limitations, 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 27, which not only destroys the right to recover a legacy (aect. 40), but extinguishes the right to it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kellett v Kellett
...Eq. 70. Gough v. BultENR 16 Sim. 323. Edwards v. MorganENR M'Clel. 554. M'Donnell v. WhiteENR 11 H. L. C. 570. Pattison v. HawkesworthENR 10 Beav. 375. Harcourt v. WhiteENR 28 Beav. 303. Legacy — Lapse — Gift Over — Interest. 298 THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. V. C. Court. expenses ;" and ......
-
HARGROVE'S TRUSTS and 11 & 12 VICT. C 68. [v C. Court.]
...185. Griffiths v. EvanENR 5 Beav. 241. Langley v. Langley 2 Ir. Eq. R. 313. Flower v. Marten 2 M. & Cr. 459. Pettison v. HawkesworthENR 10 Beav. 375. Brown v. Higgs 8 Ves. 561; 5 M. & Cr. 92; 2 Wh. & Tud. L. C. 964, 4th Ed. Healy v. DonneryUNK 3 Ir. C. L. R. 213. Crossling v. CrosslingENR 2......