Sadler v Pratt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 January 1833 |
| Date | 29 January 1833 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 58 E.R. 476
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See In re Farncombès Trusts, 1878, 9 Ch. D. 657. Distinguished, In re Perkins [1893], 1 Ch. 290.
Appointment.
[632] sadler v. pratt. Jan. 29, 1833. ^ [See In re Farncambe's Trusts, 1878, 9 Ch. D. 657. Distinguished, ää _ ,_ In re Perkins r n " '"" Appointment. A lady having four children by her first husband, and three by her second, and having power to appoint a fund amongst the former only, appointed it amongst all her children equally, and declared that, if her children by her first husband should refuse to share the fund with her other children, the whole fund should go to her youngest child by her first husband. Held that the appointment was not wholly void, but that the first class of children took, each, one-seventh of the fund under it, and the other shares went to them, as in default of appointment. By the settlement on the marriage of James Sadler with Elizabeth Williams, dated the 19th of May 1807, a sum of stock belonging to the lady was settled in trust for her separate use during her life, and after her decease, in trust for her husband for his life, if he survived her, and after the death of the survivor, in trust for all and every the child or children of the marriage, or any such one or more of them exclusive of the rest, and in such parts, shares and proportions and manner, and at such ages or times, and subject to, with and under such powers, provisoes, conditions and dispositions, such dispositions to be for the benefit of some one or more of such children, as the intended wife by deed, or by her will, should appoint; and, in default thereof, in trust for the children of the marriage in equal shares, the shares of sons to be vested in them at 21, and the shares of daughters at 21 or marriage, which should first happen, and to be transferred to them at the same ages or times respectively, if the same should happen after the decease of the survivor of the husband and wife, but if the same should happen during their joint lives or the D SIM. 633. SADLER I'. PBATT 477 life of the survivor, then immediately after the decease of the survivor: and in case there should be no child of the marriage who should become entitled to the fund under the trusts aforesaid, then in trust as therein mentioned. There was issue of the marriage four children, the Defendants James H. C. Sadler, Albinia Sadler, William [633] Braham Sadler, and the Plaintiff H. H. Sadler...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lady Mary Topham v The Duke of Portland
...(11 Ves. 479); Keily v. Keily (4 Dru. & War. 55); Watt v. CreyJce (3 Sm. & Gif. 362); Boutkdge, v. Donil (2 Ves. jun. 357); Sadkr v. Pratt (5 Sim. 632); Feamn v. Desbrisay (14 Beav. 635); Beere v. Ho/mister (23 Beav. 101); Bristow v. Wank (2 Ves. jun. 350); Mmldison v. Andrew (1 Ves. sen. 5......
-
Topham v The Duke of Portland
...& Myl. 304); Ring v. Hardwick (2 Beav. 352); Lassence v. Tierney (1 Mac. & Gor. 551); Saamders v. Fautier (Cr. & Ph. 240); Sadler v. Pratt (5 Sim. 632). [the lord justice turner. If you sever, how can the validity be tested by the motive alone ? How can you sever the motive 1] If this shoul......
-
Agassiz v Squire
...(6th ed.)); Langston v. Blackmare (Amb. 289); Daubeny v. Cockburn (1 Mer. 626); Alexander v. Alexander (2 Ves. sen. 640); Sadler v. Pratt (5 Sim. 632). Mr. Toller, in reply. the master of the rolls reserved judgment. March 22, 1854. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. The question i......
-
Harvey v Stracey
...that is too remote; but the effect is merely to vest the interest absolutely in the nieces; Kampf v. Jones (2 Keen, 756), Sadler v. Pratt (5 Sim. 632). [ViCE-CHANCELLOK. The argument against the execution was not remoteness, but that the objects must be within the eighth degree of consangui......