Popham against Lady Aylesbury

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date05 November 1748
Date05 November 1748
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 40

HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY

Popham against Lady Aylesbury

Case 26.-popham against Lady aylesbury. Nov. 5, 1748. Bank Notes pass as cash, by a devise of all that should he in his house at his death. (So held by Lord Hardwicke, in Southcot v. Watson, 3 Atk. 232, and Chapman v. Hart, 1 Ves. 272. See what LoidEldon says on this case mStuart v. Marquis of Bute, 11 Ves. 662.) Devise of freehold and leasehold estates to trustees in trust, by rents and profits, or by sale or mortgage, to pay debts and legacies which his personal estate should not be sufficient, and subject thereto, in case T. B. should attain 21, in trust for him, his heirs and executors. Held that the rents and profits, till T. B. attained 21, were not undisposed of, but passed by the devise to the trustees, and were, after payment of legacies, annuities, and interest of the debts, to be applied to sink the principal of the debts. (See Bland v. Bland, cited post, 96. Gibson v. Rogers, post, 93. Genery v. Fitzgerald, 1 Jacob, 469.)-[Lib. Keg. 1748, B. fo. 151, nom. Popham v. Bathurst. S. C. 10 Hil. MSS. 267, Tot. Verb.] Cause by consent, at Powis House. The late Earl of Aylesbury devised all his freehold and leasehold estates whatsoever (except the house he inhabited) to his wife the defendant, the Earl of Oxford, Mr. Popham, and others, and their heirs, executors, and administrators, respectively, in trust, by and out of the rents and profits thereof, or by sale or mortgage, to pay and discharge all such of his debts and legacies as his personal estate should not be sufficient to pay. Then he gives his lady his house in Warwick-street, for the remainder of the term he had therein, with all that should be in it at his death; and afterwards gives to his aforesaid trustees, all his freehold, leasehold, and personal estate whatever (except his said house), subject to his debts and legacies, to the use of them, their heirs, executors and administrators, in trust, if he should have one or more sons who should attain the age of twenty-one, for such son as should first attain that age, his heirs, executors, and administrators respectively ; and in case he should have no son who should attain twenty-one, and that his nephew Thomas Bruce Brudenell should live to attain that age, then in trust for his said [69] nephew, his heirs, executors, and administrators, with remainders to several others of his nephews and kindred, upon their attaining 21. (" With remainder over to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • King v Denison
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 9 Febrero 1813
    ...Talbot, 78.-Durdur v. Motteux, I Ves. Sen. 320.-Cook v. Duckenfield, 2 Atk. 562.- Wright v. Row, 1 Bro. G. C. 61.-Popham v. Lady Aylesbury, Amb. 68.-See Wright v. Wright, 16 Ves. 188, and the References in the Note, 190, to other late Cases. English Reports Citation: 35 E.R. 102 HIGH COURT......
  • Mƒ€™DONNELL v MURRAY
    • Ireland
    • Exchequer (Ireland)
    • 15 Junio 1859
    ...England 2 Ves. 38. Miller v. RaceENR 1 Burr. 452. The Guardians of Lichfield Union v. GreeneENR 1 H. & N. 884. Popham v. Lady AylesburyENR Amb. 68. Downing v. TownsendENR Amb. 280. Fleming v. Brook 1 Sch. & Lef. 318. Mayor v. JohnsonENR 3 Camp. 324. Charnley v. GrundyENR 14 C. B. 608. Mosso......
  • Sir Jacob Downing against Bagnall
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 1 Enero 1784
    ...money she had, but also cash notes, for they are now held to be the same in the case of Popham v. Bruce and Lord Aylesbury 1742 in Chancery (Amb. 68). The word " has " in this paper, is in the present tense, but it is insisted, that it ought to signify shall have.--And to be sure it sometim......
  • James Ackers (formerly called James Coops)(an Infant), by Nathaniel Charles Milne, his Guardian, - Appellant; Sophia Phipps, Widow, - Respondent
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 1 Enero 1835
    ...be clear beyond question that the Appellant could take no more; for in the former ease as in Stanley v. Stanley, the direction to convey * Amb. 68. t 2 Mer. 38. J 5 Ves. 522. 1362 ACKERS V. PHIPPS [1835] IX BLIGH N. S. is absolute, and not, as in this case, conditional, or to be accompanied......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT