Re Wollaston's Settlement
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 January 1860 |
| Date | 30 January 1860 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 54 E.R. 255
ROLLS COURT
[642] In re wollaston'h settlement. Jan. 30, 1860. A fund was settled on trust for the wife for life, and in case she should leave any issue living at her death, for the husband for life, and, after his decease, upon trust to divide it amongst the children of the marriage " that should be then living on their respectively attaining the age of twenty-one years." And in case there should be no child, or of their all dying in the wife's life, to pay the fund to such person as his wife should by will appoint, and, in default, to the executors or administrators of the huaband and wife or the survivor of them. And in case the wife should survive her husband without leaving issue then living, to pay the fund to the wife. The wife died leaving children who had attained twenty-one, and the husband was still living. Held, that the limitation to the children remained contingent until the death of their father. By articles made in 1806, on the marriage of Thomas Acton Wollaston with Mary Morris, her father covenanted that his executors would pay 2000 to trustees, upon trust to pay the interest or dividends thereof to Mary Wollaston for her life for her separate use, and after the decease of Mary Wollaston, in case she should leave any issue of her body living at her death, then upon trust to pay to Thomas Acton Wollaston the interest or dividends of the 2000 for his life, and, after his decease, then upon further trust that [643] the trustees, or the survivor of them, his executors or administrators, should distribute and divide the principal sum of 2000, and all interest or dividends that should be then due, unto or amongst the child or children of Mary Wollaston by Thomas Acton Wollaston begotten that should be then living, share and share alike, on their respectively attaining the age of twenty-one years, and if but one such child, then to pay the whole unto such only child at that age, and the interest and dividends to be applied for the maintenance, education and support of such child or children in the meantime. And in case there should be no child or children of the then intended marriage, or, being such, all of them should happen to die in the lifetime of Mary Wollaston, then upon trust to pay the sum of 2000 to such person or persons as Mary Wollaston should, by her will, appoint, and, in default of such appointment, to pay the same to the executors or administrators of John...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palmer v Orpen
...Div. 138. (9) 3 Drew. 202. (4) 2 Ch. Div. 413. (10) L. R. 16 Eq.. 258. (5) 1 fm, Bl. 638. (11) 8 Sim. 446. (6) 1 Ld. Raymond, 203. (12) 27 Beav. 642. Vol. I.] CHANCERT DIVISION. " then" must refer to the period of the death of the person last named, and not to the period of the determinatio......
-
Kellett v Kellett
...v. Brownrigg 1 Philips, 301. Howard v. CollinsELR L. R. 5 Eq. 349. Wordsworth v. WoodENR 1 H. L. C. 129. Wollaston's SettlementENR 27 Beav. 642. Archer v. JegonENR 8 Sim. 448. Edgington's TrustsENR 3 Drew. 202. Baldwin v. BaldwinENR 22 Beav. 413. In Re Jessop's EstateUNK 11 Ir. Ch. 424. Kea......
-
Currie v Larkins
...737); Wilton v. Mount (19 Bcav. 292); Hotchkin v. H-umfrey (2 Madd. 65); Jeffery v. Jeffery (17 Sim. 26); In re Wollastm'x Settlement (27 Beav. 642). Mr. Bedwell (Mr. Malins with him), for the trustees, took no part in the argument. Mr. Rasch, for the Defendant Walter Farquhar Larkins, in s......