Salkeld v Vernon. Salkeld v Salkeld

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date15 March 1758
Date15 March 1758
CourtHigh Court of Chancery
Salkeld
and
Vernon. Salkeld v. Salkeld

English Reports Citation: 28 E.R. 608

HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY

See Bryan v. Mansion, 1852, 5 De G. & S. 742.

[64] salkeld v. vernon. salkeld v. salkeld. 9th, 10th, & 15th March 1758. [See Bryan v. Mansion, 1852, 5 De G. & S. 742.] A release, ex vi termini, imports a knowledge in the releasor of what he releases, and, therefore, where executors (who had taken the opinion of counsel, which they had not communicated) obtained a release of the orphanage share from the husband of a freeman's daughter, they were decreed to account that the parties might elect, the length of time and alleged loss of vouchers being no sufficient bar to such account. No opinion given as to the right of husband to release the orphanage share of his wife, but court inclined to think he might. Bequest to the children of testator's daughter, to the number of four, of the sum of £1000 each ; if more, the £4000 to be divided between such as should be living at testator's death; but, if his daughter should die without issue, then over ; a child by another husband, born after testator's death, cannot take, and the bequest over is good, being not a limitation over, but an absolute legacy. Bequest of the residue to his daughter, and her issue, and for want of such issue, over ; the limitation over too remote, and therefore void. James Smith, a freeman of London, upon the marriage of his daughter Sarah with Peter Ruffe, by articles bearing date the 31st of December 1736, covenanted and agreed to advance £3000 to trustees, to be paid in manner following, (that is to say) within one month after the marriage to pay to the said trustees £1000, and the further sum of £1000 within seven months then next following, and at the birth of the first child or children of the marriage £500, and at the birth of the next child or children, the further sum of £500, to be laid out in land, or government securities, to the use of the said Peter Ruffe, for life, then to the use of Sarah for her jointure, but not in bar of dower, or her customary share, with remainder to the children of the marriage. By his will, bearing date the 28th of May 1737, James Smith devised (amongst other things)" To his daughter, Sarah Ruffe's child or children, to the number of four, " the sum of £1000 each, of lawful money of Great Britain, and if she should have a " greater [65] number than four living at his decease, then he gave, devised, and be-" queathed, the sum of £4000 only, to be divided among the said children that should be so " living at his decease, share and share alike, to be paid them when they should attain " their respective ages of twenty-one years. And in case any of them die before attaining " that age, then his will was, that the share or part of her, him, or them, so dying as " aforesaid, should go to, and be given to, and equally be divided among, the survivors " or survivor of them. But if his said daughter should happen to die without issue, then, " and in such case, he gave, devised, and bequeathed the said sum of £4000 to his sister, " Mary Barker, and his nephew and niece, James and Elizabeth Barker, and the survivor " of them. He also gave, devised, and bequeathed the residue of his real and personal " estate to his said daughter Sarah Ruffe, and her issue, and, for want of such issue, " to his said sister Mary, and his said nephew and niece, Jane and Elizabeth Barker, * and the survivor of them." 1 EDEN, 66. SALKELD V. VERNON 609 He appointed his daughter, the plaintiff, executrix, and Science and Masket executors. Testator died September 1737...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Joy Douglas and Others v Barclays Bank Plc and Another
    • Jamaica
    • Supreme Court (Jamaica)
    • 21 June 2013
    ...time. Reference was made to Cole v. Gibson (1750) 1 Ves Sen 503 at 507, Ramsden v. Hylton (1751) 2 Ves Sen 304 at 311, Salkeld v. Vernon 1 Eden 64 at 67-68 and Lindo v. Lindo (1839) 1 Beav 496 at 505-506. 53 Where the defence of laches is concerned, counsel stated that where the Statute of ......
  • Maranello Rosso Ltd v Lohomij BV
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 6 September 2021
    ...“69. … On a principle of law like this, I think it is legitimate to go back to authority, to Lord Keeper Henley in Salkeld v Vernon 1 Eden 64, 69, where he said: ‘no rule is better established than that every deed obtained on suggestio falsi, or suppressio veri, is an imposition in a court ......
  • Maranello Rosso Ltd v Lohomij BV
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 21 December 2022
    ...“69. … On a principle of law like this, I think it is legitimate to go back to authority, to Lord Keeper Henley in Salkeld v Vernon 1 Eden 64, 69, where he said: ‘no rule is better established than that every deed obtained on suggestio falsi, or suppressio veri, is an imposition in a court ......
  • Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA ((in Liquidation)) v Ali (No. 1)
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 1 March 2001
    ...language is used to make plain that that is his intention. This proposition was asserted by Lord Keeper Henley in Salkeld v Vernon (1758) 1 Eden 64, 28 ER 608, in a passage quoted in paragraph 11 below. It was endorsed by the High Court of Australia in Grant v John Grant & Sons Pty Ltd (195......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Refresher On Interpretation Of Clauses
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 9 July 2009
    ...and of which it could not be aware, provided clear language is used to make plain that that is its intention: Salkeld v Vernon (1758) 1 Eden 64; 28 ER In the absence of clear language, Courts have been slow to infer that a party intended to surrender rights and claims of which it was unawar......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT