Re Graham's Will
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 April 1864 |
| Date | 18 April 1864 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 454
ROLLS COURT
See Crozier v. Crozier, 1873, L. R. 15 Eq. 283.
454 in re graham's will [479] In re graham's will. April 16, 18, 1864. [See Crosier v. Crazier, 1873, L. R. 15 Eq. 283.] Bequest of 140 to A. B., the interest to be paid to her during her life, and at her death to be paid to her children, followed by the appointment of a trustee, and by a direction (not limited to her life) to pay her the interest: Held, that A. B. took a life interest only, and not an absolute interest subject to the gift to her children. William Graham made his will, dated the 14th day of December 1846, and he thereby bequeathed to his daughter Mary Graham the legacy or sum of 140, the interest or dividends arising from which to be paid to her during her life, and at her death the sum of 140 to be paid to her daughter Hannah when she attained the age of twenty-one ; but should his daughter Mary have more children, then the said sum of 140 should be equally divided amongst them as they respectively attained the age of twenty-one. And the testator appointed his brother trustee, to lend out the above-mentioned legacy upon mortgage or other good security, and that, as the interest or dividends arising from the same should become due, the said trustee should receive and pay the same to his (the testator's) daughter Mary. The testator bequeathed his residue to his son. The testator died shortly afterwards, and Hannah and the other children of the testator's daughter Mary had all died under twenty-one. The testator's daughter Mary being of advanced age, she and her husband claimed the fund absolutely, and presented a petition to obtain payment of it out of Court. Mr. Humphrey, in support of the petition. This is an absolute gift in the first instance to Mary Graham, with [480] a gift over to her children, failing which, she retains her absolute interest. There is an unlimited direction to the trustee to pay her the dividends; this is a gift of the capital; Campbell v. Brownrigg (1 Phil. 301); Salmon v. Salmm (29 Beav. 27). Mr. Mounsey, contrh, argued that this was a distinct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clune v Apjohn
...Chadwick v. DolemanENR 2 Vern. 527. Tennison v. MooreUNK 13 Ir. Eq. Rep. 424. Scarden v. WatsonENR 10 Beav. 200. In re Graham's WillENR 33 Beav. 479. Synge's TrustsUNK 3 Ir. Ch. Rep. 379. Alloway v. Alloway 4 Dr. & War. 391. Wilson v. Piggott 2 Ves., jun. 351. Wombwell v. HanrotENR 14 Beav.......