Re Crispin's Will Trusts ; Arkwright v Thurley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE RUSSELL |
| Judgment Date | 25 July 1974 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1974] EWCA Civ J0725-5 |
| Date | 25 July 1974 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1974] EWCA Civ J0725-5
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Civil Division
On appeal from Order of Vice-Chancellor Burgess, Manchester.
Lord Justice Russell
Lord Justice Stamp and
Lord Justice James
In the Matter of the Trusts of the Will of Richard Ainsworth Crispin, deceased
Mr H.E, FRANCIS, Q.C. and Mr B.C. MADDOCKS (instructed by Messrs Sharpe, Pritchard & Co., Agents for Messrs Russell & Russell, Bolton) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (First Defendant).
Mr JAMES FITZHUGH, Q.C. and Mr PETER KEENAN (instructed by Messrs Addleshaw, Sons & Latham, Manchester) appeared on behalf of the Second and Third Defendants
Mr ROBERT STERLING (instructed by Messrs Cyril Morris, Arkwright & Co., Bolton) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
The judgment I am about to read is the judgment of the Court.
This appeal from a decision of Vice-Chancellor Burgess (reported in 1973 2 All England Reports, 141) concerns the scope of a specific bequest in the testator's Will dated the 2nd February, 1970 – he died on the 20th January, 1971 – to his sister, the Appellant, of "all my personal chattels as defined in the Administration of Estates Act, 1925". Specifically it raises the question whether the bequest carries a large number of clocks (long case and bracket) and watches, the property of the testator. The value of these clocks and watches was of the order of £50,000 out of a total estate of about £80,000. The Vice-chancellor, in his conclusion that these articles were not within the specific bequest, was much swayed by what he considered to be the improbability that the testator intended such a large proportion in point of value of his estate to be comprised in the bequest. We say at once that this was a wholly irrelevant consideration: and indeed it was not supported as relevant in this Court. The scope of the bequest must be decided in exactly the same way in which it would have been decided on an intestacy, what articles were within the widow's statutory right to personal chattels as defined. The definition in the Administration of Estates Act, 1925, of "personal chattels" is as follows: "Personal chattels' mean carriages, horses, stable furniture and effects (not used for business purposes), motor cars and accessories (not used for business purposes), garden effects, domestic animals, plate, plated articles, linen, china, glass, books, pictures, prints, furniture, jewellery, articles of household orpersonal use or ornament, musical and scientific instruments and apparatus, wines, liquors and consumable stores, but do not include any chattels used at the death of the intestate for business purposes nor money or securities for money". It is to be observed of this definition that there are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Idaho Code § 67-431 Compensation and Expenses
...[67-431, added 1963, ch. 57, sec. 5, p. 222; am. 1967, ch. 223, sec. 1, p. 674; am. 1967, ch. 365, sec. 5, p. 1054; am. 1975, ch. 245, sec. 1, p. 657; am. 2009, ch. 52, sec. 7, p....