Rucker v Scholefield
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 1862 |
| Date | 14 November 1862 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 71 E.R. 16
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
S. C. 32 L. J. Ch. 46; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 17; 11 W. R. 137. See McDonald v. McDonald, 1875, L. R. 2 H. L. Sc. 490.
Power. Appointment in Excess. Remoteness. Life Interest. Hotchpot.
[36] RUCKER V. SCHOLEFIELD. Nov. 12, 14, 1862. S. C. 32 L. J. Ch. 46 ; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 17 ; 11 W. E. 137. See McDonald v. McDonald, 1875, L. E. 2 H. L. Sc. 490.] Power. Appointment in Excess. Remoteness. Life Interest. Hotchpot. Under an exclusive power to appoint a trust fund of stock to children and their issue born during the lives of the donees of the power, with a hotchpot clause, an appointment was made to five daughters out of nine children, whereby the trustees were directed, after the death of the parents (tenants for life), to stand possessed of the fund upon the trusts following: that is to say, upon trust thereout to appropriate one-fifth part to and for the benefit of each daughter, and to pay and apply the income of the share of each daughter for her separate use; and after the decease of each daughter upon trusts for the benefit of her children. Held, that the limitations over being void, the daughters took life interests only, subject to account for the value under the hotchpot clause. This was a bill filed by trustees for the administration of the trusts of a settlement, dated the 23d of September 1809, on the marriage of Jeremiah Scholefield and Margaret Holmes. After giving life interests to the husband and wife in a sum of 6000 Navy 5 per cents., the settlement declared the trusts of the stock as follows :-" In trust for and for the benefit of all and every or such one or more exclusively of the other or others of the child or children of the body of the said Margaret Holmes by the said Jeremiah Soholefield to be begotten, or of the issue of any such child or children born during the lives or life of the said Jeremiah Scholefield and Margaret Holmes, or of 1H. &M. 37. RUCKER V. SCHOLEFIELD 17 the survivor of them, at such ages, days, or times, and, if more than one, in such parts, shares, or proportions, and with the whole or any part or parts of such interest, dividends, or annual proceeds as aforesaid, for or towards the maintenance of any such child or children or issue as the husband and wife should jointly appoint." Then followed limitations in default of appointment to the sons at twenty-one, or death under twenty-one leaving issue, and to the daughters at twenty-one or marriage, in equal shares, with a proviso that " no child taking under any appointment to be made in exercise of the aforesaid powers, or either of them, shall be entitled to any share of the unappointed part of the said trust fund, without bringing his or her appointed share into hotchpot and accounting for the same accordingly, unless such appointment shall contain an express direction to the contrary." There were four sons and five daughters of the marriage, all born before the date of the next-mentioned deed. [37] By a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watson v Holland
...... (3) There is no separate initial gift, the initial gift and the trusts running together so as to form one disposition ( Rucker v. Scholefield ENR (1862) 1 H. & M. 36, at p. 41; Re Cohen's Will Trusts [1939] 1 All E.R. 103, at p. 105; In re PayneELR [1927] 2 Ch. 1 at p. 2. ......
-
Womble Bond Dickinson (Trust Corporation) Ltd v Sarah Glenn
...a series of limitations over so as to form one system of trusts, then the rule will not apply (see Rucker v Scholefield (1862) 1 Hem & M 36, 71 ER 16). (3) In most of the cases where the rule has been held to apply, the engrafted inconsistent trusts have been separated from the absolute gif......
- Re Cohen's Will Trusts
-
Re D'Arcy. Russell v D'Arcy
...C.J. , FitzGibbon , Murnaghan , Meredith and Geoghegan JJ. (1) [1935] A. C. 382. (2) L. R. 3 H. L. 160. (3) 26 L. J. Ch. 624. (4) 1 Hem. & M. 36. (5) 18 Ch. D. (6) 8 Beav. 576. (1) 1 Mac. & G. 551, at p. 561. (2) L. R. 3 H. L. 160. (1) [1903] 1 I. R. 326. (2) 1 Phil. 301. (3) [1935] A. C. 3......