Pattison v Pattison
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 January 1855 |
| Date | 17 January 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 498
ROLLS COURT
See In re Hutchinson, 1886, 55 L. J. Ch. 575.
[638] pattison v. pattison. Dec. 20, 21, 1854; Jan. 17, 1855. [See In re Hutchinsm, 1886, 55 L. J. Ch. 575.] A testator gave a fund to his wife for life, with a power for her to appoint it by will amongst " A., B. and C., and their respective children," and, in default of appointment, he directed " the same, at his wife's death, to go amongst all the said children equally. The wife made no appoinment. Held, first, that the children alone took, to the exclusion of their parents; secondly, that they took^r capita; and thirdly, that the fund vested in the children living at the death of the testator, subject to its being either divested by the exercise of the power or by the birth of other children before the death of the tenant for life. The testator directed .£1000 to be invested in Government security, and the dividends to be paid to his wife for life, and the principal money to be paid " as his wife should by her last will direct, unto or amongst her relations, James Walker, William Walker and Mrs. Stringer, and their respective children, in any proportions and to any one or more of them in exclusion of the others or other of them." And "in default of such appointment, the same, at my wife's death, to go amongst all the said children equally." The testator died in 1831, and his widow in 1854, without having made any appointment. At the death of the testator, James and William Walker, and Mrs. Stringer, had ten children, two of whom died in the lifetime of the widow. They had two children bora between the death of the testator and that of his widow. On the death of the widow, four of the five children of Mrs. Stringer, living at the death of the testator, presented a petition for payment to each of them of a tenth part of the fund on which the £1000 had been invested. The questions were whether the children alone took the fund, and if so, whether per capita or per stirpes. Another question was raised incidentally as to the class of children, and whether children born at the death of the testator, or all children born before the death of the [639] tenant for life, or those only living at her death, were entitled to take. 19BEAV. 6. PATTISON V. PATTISON 499 Mr. R. Palmer, for the Petitioners. First, there having been no appointment, the children alone are entitled; for though the power extended to the parents as wall aa to their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fletcher v Fletcher
...166. Smith v. StreatfieldENR 1 Mer. 358. Abrey v. NewmanENR 16 Beav. 431. Arrow v. MellishENR 1 De G. & Sm. 355. Pattison v. PattisonENR 19 Beav. 638. Tyndale v. WilkinsonENR 23 Beav. 74. Rook v. Attorney GeneralENR 31 Beav. 313. In re Davies WillENR 29 Beav. 93. Brett v. HortonENR 4 Beav. ......
-
Fletcher v Fletcher
...Lady Lincoln v. Pelham 10 Ves. 166. Eccard v. BrookeENR 2 Cox 213. Davis v. Bennet 31 L. J. Ch. (N. S.) 337. Pattison v. PattisonENR 19 Beav. 638. Brett v. HortonENR 4 Beav. 239. Nettle v. Stephenson 18 L. J. Ch. (N. S.) 191. Pattison v. PattisonENR 19 Beav. 638. Tydale v. WilkinsonENR 23 B......
-
Howard's Trusts
...v. Higgs 4 Ves. 708; 5 Ves. 595; 8 Ves. 561. Vanderzee v. Aclom 4 Ves. 770. Fenwick v. GreenwellENR 10 Beav. 471. Patteson v. PattesonENR 19 Beav. 638. Packham v. GregoryENR 4 Hare, 397, 398. Emperor v. RolfeENR 1 Ves. sen. 208. 344 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1858. Rolls. Tan. 29. April 19. A fund w......