Pope v Whitcombe
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 July 1810 |
| Date | 14 July 1810 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 36 E.R. 264
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Report corrected, Finch v. Hollingsworth, 1855, 21 Beav. 112.
pope v. whitcombe. Bolls. July 14, 1810. [Report corrected, Finch v. Hollingsicorth, 1855, 21 Beav. 112.] Ex relations Mr. Simpkinson.-Word " Relations," in a will, means " next of kin.'1 Bequest of residue to testator's wife for life, with a direction to dispose of the residue amongst his relations in such manner as she should think fit.' Appointment to relations, not being next of kin, void, and the residue decreed to be distributed amongst those who were next of kin to the testator at the time of his death. James Ohilde gave the residue of his estate and effects to his wife, Mary Childe, for life, with remainder to his son, J. Childe, absolutely, if he should attain, twenty-one ; but in case of his son's death before twenty-one, and without issue, then he gave certain legacies to some of his relations ; and he directed his wife to dispose of the residue amongst his the testator's relations, iti such manner as she should think fit. The son died under twenty-one, and without issue, in the life-time of the testator. After the testator's death, the wife appointed this residue to a natural son of one of the testator's nephews, and to other persons, who were related to the testator, but not his next of kin. At the time of the testator's death, his next of kin were John Childe, his half-brother, and Thomas and John Whitcmnbe, the sons of a deceased sister. Thomas and John Whitcombe both died in the life-time of the wife. At the hearing, the usual accounts were directed, and the Master was directed to enquire who were the testator's next of kin at the time of his death, and who, [690] at the time of the death of Mary Childe, and whether the appointees of Mary 3MEB. 691. OALLINI V. NOBLK 265 Childe were within any and what degree of relationship to the testator. The Master reported as above ; and the cause came oil this day upon further directions. Hart and Wyatt, for John Childe,, contended, that the wife could only appoint to the next of kin, and that, the appointment being bad in trito, John Ch.ildf. was entitled to the whole, lie being the only next of kin living at the death of the wife ; and upon this last point they cited Harding v= (fii/n (1 Atk. 4(11)), and (Jruwys v. 'olman.(l) tiimpkinxon, for the representatives of Tftoman and John...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reeves v Baker
...to the statute; Green v. Howard (1 Bro. C. C. 31); Cruwys v. Caiman (9 Ves. 319); Gibson v. Kinaen (1 Vern. 66); Pope v. Whitcombe (3 Mer. 689); ^and it can only be properly exercised in favour of some of those two classes. The power so given was a mere power of distribution among the speci......
-
Sheehy v Nugent
...R. 324. Jackson's WillELR 13 Ch. D. 189. Lambert v. ThwaitesELR L. R. 2 Eq. 151. Lawlor v. Henderson I. R. 10 Eq. 150. Pope v. WhitcombeENR 3 Mer. 689. Wilson v. DuguidELR 24. Ch. D. 244. Will — Construction — Power of Appointment amongst Nephews and Nieces and other relations of Donee — Po......
-
Holloway v Radcliffe
...the next of kin of the first testator living at the death of the tenant for life, cited Bird v. Luckie (8 Hare, 307); Pope v. Wnxtcambe (3 Mer. 689); Say v. Creed (5 Hare, 580); De Trafford v. Tempest (21 Beav. 564). [163] Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Freeling, on behalf of parties claiming under the......
-
Re Patterson, Deceased. Dunlop v Greer
...In re DeakinELR [1894] 3 Ch. at p. 575. Lawler v. Henderson I. R. 10 Eq. 151. Moore v. FfolliotUNK 19 L. R. Ir. 499. Pope v. WhitcombeENR 3 Mer. 689. Re Redfern 6 Ch. Div. 133. Reade v. Reade 5 Ves. 744. Roach v. Hammond Gilbert's Eq. Rep. 92. Tiffin v. LongmanENR 15 Beav. 275. Towns v. Wen......