Reeves v Baker
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 March 1854 |
| Date | 27 March 1854 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 147
ROLLS COURT.
S. C. 2 Eq. R. 476; 23 L. J. Ch. 599; 18 Jur. 588; 2 W. R. 354. See Lamb v. Eames, 1870, L. R. 10 Eq. 271. Cf. Comiskey v. Bowring-Hanbury [1905], A. C. 84.
[372] beeves v. baker. March 22, 23, 27, 1854. [S. C. 2 Eq. E. 476 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 599; 18 Jur. 588; 2 W. R. 354. See Lamb v. Eames, 1870, L. R. 10 Eq. 271. Cf. Cmiiskey v. Bommg-Hantrnry [1905], A. C. 84.] A testator gave all the residue of his property to his wife, " her heirs and assigns, for ever, being fully satisfied that she would dispose of it, by will or otherwise, in a fair and equitable manner, to their united relatives, bearing in mind that his rela-tivea were generally in better circumstances than hers." Held, that no precatory trust was created. A testator gave the residue of his property, whether freehold or personal, and wheresoever situate, to A. B. Held, that copyholds passed. The will of John Reeves, dated 27th September 1841, contained these words:- " First, I direct my executrix, hereinafter appointed, to pay all my just debts, funeral and testamentary expenses; that being done, all the rest, residue and remainder of my property, whether freehold or personal estate, and wheresoever situate, I give and devise to my beloved wife, Mary Reeves, her heirs and assigns, for ever, being fully satisfied that, if it please God to take me first, she will dispose of the same, by will or otherwise, in a fair and equitable manner, to our united relatives, bearing in mind that my relatives are generally in better worldly circumstances than hers are." The testator appointed his wife his sola executrix. The testator died in April 1846, being entitled to certain copyholds as well as freehold and personal estate. Mary Reeves, by her will, dated the 12th of August 1846, after reciting her husband's will, proceeded-" In compliance with, and in execution of the above-mentioned declaration of my said late husband, I give, bequeath and dispose of, to the family of my said late husband, the following bequests and legacies, which constitute a very material part of the real and personal property so given and bequeathed to me by my said late husband in and by his hereinbefore-recited will, that is to say " [here followed the several devises and bequests to her husband's relatives]. The testatrix [373] then proceeded- I give, devise and bequeath, unto my own family, the other and remaining part of the real and personal estate so given and devised to me by my said late husband, and ako such other property which constitutes my separate estate, 148 BEEVES V. BAKER 18 BEAV. 374. and of which I am possessed or otherwise entitled to independent of my said late husband, that is to say " [then followed sundry gifts to persons of her own family, and a gift to the widow of a deceased brother, who was a stranger in blood both to the testatrix and testator]. With the above exception, all the persons who took benefits under Mrs. Reeve's will were relatives either of herself or her husband. They were not all, however, next of kin, according to the Statutes of Distribution, of her or her husband, either at their respective deaths, or upon the death of both; and though a brother of the testatrix, who was one of her next of kin, took nothing under her will; yet all the other next of kin of herself and husband were included. The testatrix had no copyholds at her decease, except those of which her husband died seised. The testatrix made two codicils to her will, dated respectively the 12th and 22d of August 1846, and she died in September following. There were some doubts as to whether the testatrix was absolutely entitled to the property disposed of by her husband's will, or whether a trust, or power of appointment only, was thereby created, and if so, whether the testatrix had, by her will, duly exercised it, and also whether the copyholds passed under the words in the testator's will. A suit was instituted by Henry Reeves, a brother, and the heir at law and customary heir of the testator, and one of his next of kin, to es-[374]-tablish and carry out the trusts of both wills, and to ascertain the rights of the parties. It was the Plaintiff's interest to support the testatrix's will, rather than to take against it. Mr. Follett and Mr. W. W. Cooper, for the Plaintiff. The questions are, first, whether any precatory trust, or power of appointment, has been created by the will of John Reeves? and if so, secondly, whether it has been duly exercised by the widow, that is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clancarty v Clancarty
...Irvine v. SullivanELR L. R. 8 Eq. 673. Williams v. WilliamsENR 1 Sim. (N. S.) 358. Green v. MarsdenENR 1 Drew. 646. Reeves v. BakerENR 18 Beav. 372. Lambe v. EamesELR L. R. 6 Ch. App. 597. Adams v. Kensington Vestry 27 Ch. Div. 410. Hutchinson and Tenant 8 Ch. Div. 540. Musssorie Bank v. Ra......
-
Tighe v Fetherstonhaugh
...Wylie 10 H. L. Cas. 1. Rawlings v. Jennings 13 Ves. 39 Wrench v. JuttingENR 3 Beav. 521. Byrom v. BrandrethELR L. R. 16 Eq. 475. BakerENR 18 Beav. 372. Rogers v. Thomas 2 Kee. 8. Martin v. GloverENR 1 Coll. 269. Arnold v. ArnoldENR 2 MY. & K. 365. Lysaght v. EduardsELR 2 Ch.D.513. Goods of ......
-
Hood v Oglander
...C. C. 142); Sale v. Moore (1 Sim. 534); Williams v. Williams (1 Sim. (N. S.) 358); Macnab v. Whitbi'ead (17 Beav. 299); Reeves v. Baker (18 Beav. 372), to shew that the expressions were so obscure and so wanting in precision and distinctness as to the object, as not to create any precatory ......
-
Fox v Fox
...argued that she took absolutely, subject only to a moral obligation to bring up and provide for her children. They cited Reeve* v. Baker (18 Beav. 372). [302] Mr. C. Hall, for the children, argued that there was, upon the authorities, a precatory trust in their favor. He cited Gully v. Creg......