Salmon v Green
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1849 |
| Date | 01 January 1849 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 892
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 18 L. J. Ch. 166; 13 Jur. 272, 617.
[453] salmon . green. March 1, 2, April 4, 1849. [S. C. 18 L. J. Ch. 166 ; 13 Jur. 272, 617.] A bequest of residue to trustees on the trusts after mentioned, followed, first, by a trust to provide for annuities, then by a trust to pay interest to legatees for life, and then by a trust to " pay and transfer " the capital to the children of the tenants for life, gives to those children an interest which vests immediately on the testator's death. Difficulty arising from a sole Plaintiff representing two conflicting interests. The testator, James Salmon, by his will, dated the 1st of December 1826, expressed with extraordinary prolixity, gave to trustees all the residue of his personal estate on the trusts after mentioned. The first trust was to provide, by investment, for the payment of certain annuities, and, after that ^investment, on trust to receive the dividends and interest of the residue, and pay the same unto, between and among his two children, James and Rebecca, and his granddaughter Martha, for the life of each of them, as therein mentioned-viz., one-third part of the dividends and interest to his son James, one-third to his daughter Rebecca, and the remaining one-third to his granddaughter Martha; and after the decease of his said children and grandchild, or either of them, upon trust to transfer and pay the share of any so dying, unto, between and amongst all and every the child and children of the son, daughter and grandchild, respectively, so dying, share and share alike, if more than one, and if but one 11BEAV.4M. SALMON V. GKEEN 893 child of each, then the share of the one so dying to be paid or transferred to such only one child. Provision waa made for the falling into the residue of the sums invested to answer the annuities; and the will directed, that if either of his children, James and Eebecca, or hia grandchild Martha, should die without issue, or, being such, all of them should die under the age of twenty-one years, the share of the one so dying without issue should go and be divided amongst the [454] children or child of the survivors or survivor of the testator's children or grandchild. The testator died on the 7th of December 1826, leaving his son and daughter James and Rebecca and his granddaughter Martha him surviving. James, the son, had at that time three children living, viz., Charles, the Plaintiff in this cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burrell v Baskerfield
...there was no gift, except in a direction " to pay and divide " on a given event, did not apply to the present case ; Salmon v. Green (11 Beav. 453), Leeming v. Sherratt (2 Hare, 14), Packham v. Gregory (4 Hare, 396). That the true effect of the residuary gift was, to give interests to the f......
-
Shum v Hobbs
...the executors of Ealph Bressey Shum the elder. They cited Packham v. Gregory (4 Hare, 396); Chafers v. Abel (3 Jur. 578); Salmon v. Green (11 Beav. 453); Harrison v. Grimwood (12 Beav. 192); Dames v. Fischer (5 Beav. 201); Lister v. Bradley (I Hare, 10). )8] Mr. Baily and Mr. Easch, for the......
-
The Act of 11 & 12 Vic. c. 68, and the Trusts of the Settlement of WILLIAM ORME, Esq.
...of WILLIAM ORME, Esq. Vize v. StoneyUNK 1 Dr. & War. 337; S. C. 4 Ir. Eq. Rep. 64. Hanson v. Graham 6 Ves. 239. Salmon v. GreenENR 11 Beav. 453 Berkely v. SwinburneENR 6 Sim. 613. Stephens v. Frost 2 Y. & Col. Exch. 3063. Harrison v. GrimwoodENR 12 Beav. 192. Davies v. FisherENR 5 Beav. 201......
-
The Right Hon. JOHN RICHARDS, one of the Barons of HM Court of Exchequer, CAROLINE RICHARDS, Widow, CAROLINE MARIA RICHARDS, otherwise WOODHOUSE, and another, v CROASDAILE MOLONY, HENRY MOLONY and Others
...705. O'Gorman v. Comyn 2 Sch. & Lef. 147. Prodgers v. LanghamENR 1 Sid. 133. Spackman v. TimbrellENR 8 Sim. 253. Salmon v. GreenENR 11 Beav. 453. Padwick v. PlattENR 11 Beav. 503. Carey v. GoodingeENR 3 Bro. C. C. 111. Berry v. Usher 11 Ves. 90; et vide Willock v. Dargan, 1 Ir. Chan. Rep. 3......