Re Blake. Berry v Geen

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtHouse of Lords
JudgeThe Lord Chancellor,Lord Thankerton,Lord Macmillan
Judgment Date09 May 1938
Judgment citation (vLex)[1938] UKHL J0412-2
Date09 May 1938

[1938] UKHL J0412-2

House of Lords

Berry
and
Geen and Others.

After hearing Counsel for the Appellants, as well on Monday the 7th, as on Tuesday the 8th, days of March last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Sidney Malcolm Berry, the Secretary of and suing and appealing on behalf of The Congregational Union of England and Wales, The Memorial Hall, Farringdon Street, in the City of London, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 5th of February, 1937, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, except so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of Harry Geen, Elizabeth Blake, Widow (since deceased), Ruby James, Married Woman, Muriel Pearl Bloomer, Married Woman, Josias Crocker Beare, Alfred Oliver Crocker, George Robert Couch, Frederick Charles Snow, Bernard Nixon Wale, Edgar William Greenslade, Reginald George Palk, John Henry Herbert Richards, Frank Ernest Wotton and Arthur Windsor, and also upon the printed Case of Frederick John Cornish, lodged in answer to the said Appeal (in which said Appeal His Majesty's Attorney-General, called as a Respondent, was stated in the case of the said Respondents, Harry Geen, Elizabeth Blake (since deceased), Ruby James, Muriel Pear Bloomer, Josias Crocker Beare, Alfred Oliver Crocker, George Robert Couch, Frederick Charles Snow, Bernard Nixon Wale, Edgar William Greenslade, Reginald George Palk, John Henry Herbert Richards, Frank Ernest Wotton and Arthur Windsor, to be concerned only for the protection of the will of Charles Davey Blake, deceased, and did not lodge a separate Case in answer thereto); and Counsel appearing for the Respondents but not being called upon; and due consideration being had this day of what was offered for the said Appellants.

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 5th day of February, 1937, in part complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the costs of all parties in respect of the said Appeal to this House, be taxed as between Solicitor and Client and paid out of the Testator's Estate, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments.

This Draft to be returned to the Judicial Office on or before

1

Draft Judgment.

2

This Draft (a duplicate of which is sent to the Agents on the other side) is submitted for approval. If approved, it is to be signed by the Solicitor or Agent, and returned without delay to the Judicial Office. In the event of Alterations being proposed, those Alterations are to be submitted to the opposing Solicitors or Agents, and, if approved by them, the altered Draft, mutually signed, is to be returned to the Judicial Office If the proposed Alterations are disagreed to, a notification to that effect, accompanied by the amended Draft, and Reasons for and against such Alterations, is to be sent to the Judicial Office.

3

[Note.All Alterations, and Amendments are to be made in Red Ink.]

4

Parliament Office,

5

Judicial Department.

[1938] UKHL J0509-9

House of Lords

Lord Chancellor

Lord Atkin

Lord Thankerton

Lord Russell of Killowen

Lord Macmillan

Berry
and
Geen and Others

After hearing Counsel, as well on Thursday the 10th, as on Friday the 11th, Monday the 14th and Tuesday the 15th, days of March last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Agnes Emily De La Poer Beresford, Married Woman, Administratrix with the Will annexed of the Estate of Charles William St. John Rowlandson, deceased, of "Ballybrack," Copthorne Common, Copthorne, Sussex, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 7th of April 1937, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of the Royal Insurance Company, Limited, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 7th day of April 1937, in part complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellant do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondents the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords,

1

The questions raised by this appeal depend upon the true construction of the Will of the testator Charles Davey Blake who died on the 1st January, 1925, and whose Will dated 14th September, 1920, was duly proved on the 18th March, 1925, by Charles Geen (since deceased) and the Respondent Harry Geen the executors therein named.

2

By his said Will the testator, after appointing executors and trustees and making certain specific devises, gave and devised all the rest of his estate of every sort and description unto his trustees upon trust to pay certain annuities out of the income of his residuary estate to the persons thereinafter named to whom he gave the same for their respective lives and he directed the same to be paid in order of preference and priority by groups as thereinafter mentioned, and there followed a series of annuities divided into six groups of which some were personal annuities for individuals and others (being group six) were annuities for institutions or bodies corporate and he declared that all the annuities in group six should cease on the death of the last personal annuitant and "on the death of the last personal annuitant" he gave four several legacies (aggregating to £6,000) to the several trustees of certain churches to be invested by them and he declared that all devises and bequests including the annuities were given free of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Figg v Clarke
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 14 February 1996
    ...Revenue) for the Crown. The following cases were referred to in the judgment: Benjamin, Re ELR[1902] 1 Ch 723 Blake, Re, Berry v Geen ELR[1938] AC 575 Dawson, Re, Johnston v Hill (1888) 39 Ch 155 Deloitte, Re, Griffiths v Deloitte ELR[1926] Ch 56 Hocking, Re, Michell v Loe ELR[1898] 2 Ch 56......
  • C v C (Ancillary Relief: Trust Fund)
    • United Kingdom
    • Family Division
    • 25 June 2009
    ...in Saunders v Vautier (1841) 4 Beav 115, Cr & Ph 240, amenable to variation if, but only if, all the beneficiaries agree unanimously: see Berry v Geen [1938] AC 575. This, as we will see, has happened once in the recent past and once in the more distant past. 15 I should add that although t......
  • A v A
    • United Kingdom
    • Family Division
    • 29 January 2007
    ...Public Trustee v Aspinall [1928] Ch 915). But since that would require the participation of all the beneficiaries (see Berry v Geen [1938] AC 575 at page 582), and since, as I have already pointed out, not all the beneficiaries in the present case are ascertained and sui juris, the possibi......
  • Blair v Curran Curran and Perpetual Trustee Company (Ltd) v Blair
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • 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