Raikes v Ward
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 March 1842 |
| Date | 07 March 1842 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 66 E.R. 1106
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 11 L. J. Ch. 276; 6 Jur. 530. Distinguished, Lambe v. Eames, 1870-71, L. R. 10 Eq. 272; L. R. 6 Ch. 597.
[445] eaikes v. ward. March 2, 7, 1842. [S. C. 11 L. J. Ch. 276; 6 Jur. 530. Distinguished, Lambe v. Eames, 1870-71, L. E. 10 Eq. 272; L. E. 6 Ch. 597.] Under a gift by a testator to his wife of his residuary personal estate, to the intent that she might dispose of the same for the benefit of herself and their children in 1HAEE.M6. RAIKES V. WARD 1107 such manner as she might deem most advantageous, the wife does not take an absolute interest. The will of George Raikes, dated the 15th of November 1838, was as follows :- " I give to my dear wife Marianne all my monies, securities for money, goods, chattels and personal estate whatsoever, to the intent that she may dispose of the same for the benefit of herself and our children, in such manner as she may deem most advantageous. And I make and appoint my said wife sole executrix of this my will." The testator died, leaving his widow (the said Marianne) and eleven of their children surviving. The bill was filed by the widow, for a declaration of the respective interests of herself and children in the personal estate of the testator under the will. The children were Defendants. Mr. Temple and Mr. G. L. Russell, for the widow, argued that she was entitled absolutely to the entire residuary personal estate.(l) Mr. Boteler and Mr. Faber, for the Defendants, contended that the bequest created a trust for the children. The authorities cited were-Sprange v. Barnard (2 Bro. C. C. 588), Andrews v. Partingtm (3 Bro. C. C. 60), Cooper v. Thornton (Id. 96, 186), Robinson v. Tickell (8 Ves. 142), Hammond v. Neame (1 Swanst. 35), Hamley v. Gilbert (Jac. 354), Curtis v. Rippon (5 Madd. 434), Chambers v. Atkins (1 Sim. & Stu. 382), [446] Benson v. Whittam (5 Sim. 22), Blakeney v. Blakeney (6 Sim. 52), Taylor v. Bacon (8 Sim. 100), Wetherell v. Wilson (1 Keen, 80), Woods v. Woods (1 M. & Or. 401), Hadow v. Hadow (9 Sim. 438), Jubber v. Jubber (9 Sim. 503), and 2 Roper, Tr. Legacies, 373. the vice-chancellor [Sir James Wigram], after stating the facts : The Plaintiff seeks the direction of the Court, but submits that she is entitled to the property absolutely. The Defendants insist that the Plaintiff, either wholly or to some extent, is a trustee for them. In support of the Plaintiff's case it was argued, first, that the bequest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arthur Pageitt Greene and Godfrey Greene, Infants, v John Greene and Others
...4 Ir. Ch. R. 1. Webb v. WoolsENR 2 Sim. N. S. 267. Robinson v. Tickell 8 Ves. 142. Hammond v. NeameENR 1 Swans. 35. Raikes v. WardENR 1 Hare, 445. Scott v. KeyENR 35 Beav. 291. Stacey v. Elph 1 Myl. & K. 191. Lowry v. FultonENR 9 Sim. 115. Davis v. Spurling 1 Rus. & Myl. 64. In re Badenach ......
-
Hart v Tribe
...16 Beav. 510, where the names are inaccurately printed. 86 HART V. TRIBE 18BBAV.S17. Conolly v. Farrell (8 Beav. 347); Raikes \. IVanl (1 Hare, 445); Cross v. K&mington (11 Beav. 89); Waldrm v. Frances (10 Hare, App. X.). the master or the eolls [Sir John Romilly]. With respect to the firat......
-
Harrison v Grimwood
...3 Hare, 245 ; Leach v. Leach, 13 Sim. 304; Bowden v. Laing, 14 Sim. 113; Crockett v. Crockett, 1 Hare, 451, 2 Phil. 553; Raikes v. Ward, 1 Hare, 445 ; Woods v. Woods, 1 Myl. & C. 401 ; Wetkerell v. Wilson, 1 Keen, 80; Camden v. Benson, 4 Law J. (N. S.) Oh. 256. (3) " The testator considers ......
-
Crockett v Crockett
...established have been recognised in very recent decisions. The first I refer to is one of Vice-Chancellor Wigram, Jtaikf.s v. Ward (1 Hare, 445), in which, under a gift to the testator's wife, to the intent that she might dispose of the same for the benefit of herself and their children in ......