Re Canning's Will Trusts. Skues v Lyon
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1936 |
| Year | 1936 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Will - Construction - Rule against Perpetuities.
Limitations, in themselves valid, which follow, but are not dependent upon, limitations offending the rule against perpetuities, are not affected by the invalidity of the prior limitations.
ADJOURNED SUMMONS.
By his will, dated January 26, 1911, the testator appointed executors and trustees, and devised all his lands in Ireland and all his live stock and chattels to his trustees upon trust that they should stand possessed of the live stock and chattels upon trust for the person or persons who should first become entitled under the trusts thereinafter contained to his real estate as tenant for life or in tail and subject to similar trusts as to management by his trustees or trustee during the life of Alick William Wittit Lyon (hereinafter referred to as “Captain Lyon”) as were thereinafter contained with reference to his real estate. The testator then directed that his trustees or trustee should stand possessed of his real estate upon certain trusts therein mentioned during the life of Captain Lyon and after his decease then (as to both the capital and income of the trust premises) in trust for all or any of the children or remoter issue of Captain Lyon for such estates, interests and shares as Captain Lyon should by will or codicil appoint and in default of, and subject to, such appointment in trust for the first and other sons of Captain Lyon successively in tail with remainder to the first and every other daughter of Captain Lyon successively in tail with remainder in trust for all or any of the sisters of Captain Lyon and their children or remoter issue for such estates, interests and shares as Captain Lyon should by will or codicil appoint and in default of, and subject to, such appointment in trust for his sisters successively in remainder according to seniority in tail and the testator declared that if there should be a failure of issue of all of them, Captain Lyon and his sisters, then his trustees or trustee should, after the decease of the last survivor of them, stand possessed of the testator's real estate and premises in trust for such persons or person, for such estates or interests and subject to such powers and provisions as Captain Lyon should by will or codicil appoint. The testator, having made provisions for the payment of certain annuities and bequeathed a number of legacies, gave and bequeathed the whole of his residuary personal estate to his trustees or trustee upon trust to sell, call in and convert the same into money and out of the moneys to arise therefrom pay his funeral and testamentary expenses and invest the residue and at their or his absolute and uncontrolled discretion apply the income of the residuary moneys and the investments thereof in managing, maintaining and keeping up his mansion house at Rostrevor in manner thereinbefore directed during the life of Captain Lyon, so long as any person entitled to the possession or receipt of the rents and profits thereof should be under twenty-one years of age and, subject thereto, his trustees or trustee should stand possessed of his residuary personal estate, as to capital and income, upon trusts corresponding as nearly as possible to the trusts thereinbefore declared...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Leek, deceased ; Darwen (Baron) v Leek
...as being dependent on the first, but if it had arisen I should not have taken this view: see Re ( Abbott 1893 1 Ch. 54), and Re Canning 1936 Ch. 309. 12 In the event, therefore, I hold that the whole trust fails and that the money passes to the widow under the testator's will and will pay d......
-
Norman Guy Donald And Another v Lee Michael Chak Chuen In His Capacity As Executor Of The Estate Of Li Pak Iu And Others
...is “dependent upon and ulterior [meaning situated more remotely] to the trust which immediately precedes it”: In re Canning’s Will Trusts [1936] Ch 309, 10 In re Canning’s Will Trusts, at 313 on the rule in Jarman on Wills 7th ed p.324. 11 The word “nevertheless” does not mean “regardless o......
- Macpherson v Maund