Ravenscroft v Frisby
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 January 1844 |
| Date | 30 January 1844 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 63 E.R. 302
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 13 L. J. Ch. 153.
302 RAVENSCROFT t'. FRISBY 1 COLL. 16. [16] eavenscroft v. feisby. Jam. 29, 30, 1844. [S. C. 13 L. J. Ch. 153.] Legacies charged on real estate held, under the circumstances of the case, to be payable, notwithstanding the lapse of more than forty years from the testator's-death to the filing of the bill; the statute 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, not being applicable. Valentine Morris, who was for some years Governor of the Island of St. Vincent, by his will, dated in December 1788, directed that all his legacies and funeral and1 testamentary expenses should be first paid and satisfied, and he subjected and charged all his estates, real and personal, with the payment of the same. He then gave-numerous legacies, amounting nearly to 3000 (amongst them three legacies of X1001 each to his sisters, Catherine Morris and Sarah Wilmot), and, subject as aforesaid, he gave all his real estates, as to a moiety thereof, to Valentine Henry Wilmot for life, with remainder to Charles Eavenseroft and Sarah, his wife, for their lives, with remainder to Valentine John Eavenseroft, their son, in fee, in case he should leave children, with a limitation, in case he died without children, to their daughter, Louisa Ashley, in fee; and as to the other moiety, to Charles Eavenseroft and Sarah, his-wife, for their lives, with remainder to such uses as Sarah Eavenseroft should appoint. All the residue and remainder of his real and personal estate he devised to Charles-Ravenscroft absolutely. And he appointed Tyrrell Herbert and William Taylor his-executors in the West Indies, and Dunn his executor in England. By a codicil the testator directed that 500 should be paid to Charles Ravenscroft and Sarah, his wife, out of the moiety of his real estate first devised. The testator died in 1789 greatly embarrassed in his affairs. At the time of his-death he was owner of five plantations in the Island of Antigua, viz., two called Crabbs and Loobys, which were mortgaged for 8086 to the assignees of one Ballmer, Jolly Hill, which was charged with annuities, but was under an agreement for sal& to the annuitants in full satisfaction of their demands, and Wil-[17]-loughby Bay, which was subject to a mortgage for 3000. The estate called Crabbs was likewise subject to incumbrances prior to that of Ballmer's assignees. All the estates were in the possession of incumbrancers. Herbert and Dunn, two of the testator's executors, renounced probate of the will r but in January 1791 letters of administration with the will and codicil annexed were granted at the highest probate duty to Whytell in England for the use of the remaining executor, Taylor, in St. Vincent; and in November 1803 Taylor himself proved the will in England. In 1809 and 1810 two several sums of 2400 and 836 were received by Taylor from the Government on account of the testator's estate. In 1815-Taylor died. In 1816, and prior to the.date of the deed after mentioned, the debt due to Ballmer's assignees had, in consequence of their having paid off the prior incumbrances on the Crabbs estate, and by the accumulation of interest and otherwise, amounted to 16,553. By an indenture, dated the 1st April 1816, and made between Valentine Henry Wilmot of the first part; Charles Ravenscroft and Sarah, his wife, and Valentine John Eavenseroft, of the second part; and Frisby and others, assignees of Ballmer, of the third part; after...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Toft v Stephenson
...the purchase-money to be brought into Court, relieve the case from any difficulty with respect to the statute: Ravenscroft v. Frisby (1 Coll. C. C. 16,23), Wrixon v. Viz& (3 D. & W. 104), Sterndale v. Hankinson (1 Sim. 393). The answers in the cause of Feary v. Stephenson amount to acknowle......
-
Bright v Larcher
...Sugdcn's Real Property Statutes, p. 126 ; [610] Prior v. Horniblow (2 Y. & C. 200); Adams v. Barry ò(2 Coll. 290); Eavenscroft v. Frisby (1 Coll. 16); Bumll v. Lord Egremtmt (7 Beav. 205) ; PFheeler v. Hawell (3 K. & J. 198); Snow v. Booth (2 K. & J. 132). On the question as to the absence ......
-
Francis v Grover
...the statute: Hargreaves v. Michell (6 Madd. 329), Ward v. Arch (12 Sim. 472), Young v. Lord Waterpark (13 Sim. 204), Eavenscroft v. Frisby (1 Coll. 16). The devisees in trust, by whom the annuity was formerly paid, were clearly trustees, as well for the annuitant as for the Defendant: Doe d......
-
Snow v Booth
...whole decree. Mr. Rolt and Mr. Boyle for the Plaintiff. They referred to Phillipo v. Muwnings (2 Myl. & Cr. 309) ; Ravenscroft v. Frisby (1 Coll. 16); Ward v. Arch (12 Sim. 472); Yming v. Lord Waterpark (13 Sim. 204); Francis v. Graver (5 Hare, 39); Roch v. Gallen (6 Hare, 531); Hunter v. N......