Scott v Key
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 July 1865 |
| Date | 12 July 1865 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 907
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 6 N. R. 349; 11 Jur. (N. S.) 819; 13 W. R. 1030. See Wilkins v. Jodrell, 1879, 13 Ch. D. 573.
[291] scott v. key. July 11, 12, 1865. [S. C. 6 N. R, 349 ; 11 Jur. (N. S.) 819 ; 13 W. R. 1030. See Wilkins v. Jodrell, 1879, 13 Ch. D. 573.] Bequest to widow of two-thirds of the residue, " to be at her sole and entire disposal, for the maintenance of herself and such child or children as I may leave by her." Held, that the widow had an uncontrolled power over the income so long as the 908 SCOTT V. KEY 38 BEAV. 292. children were maintained, and that the right of the children to maintenance did not cease at twenty-one. Bequest of the principal and interest of one-third of the residue to a widow, " being well assured that she will husband the means that may be left to her by me with every prudence and care, for the sake of herself and children." Held, that this raised no precatory trust, and that the widow took absolutely. The testator bequeathed two-thirds of his property " to his dear wife Margaret Scott, to be at her sole and entire disposal for the maintenance of herself and' such child or children as he might leave by her." Secondly, he bequeathed the remaining one-third to three trustees, to pay 300 a year to his (the testator's) father and mother, and he proceeded as follows :-On their deaths, " the balance remaining of the principal and interest of the said one-third of my property to go to my dear wife, being well assured that she will husband the means that may be left to her by me with every prudence and care, for the sake of herself and any children that I may leave by her." The testator died in 1842, leaving his widow and one child, a daughter, who married in 1862. The testator's parents were dead, and the question arose as to the interests of the mother and daughter under the will. The Plaintiff, the widow, submitted that she was entitled to the whole of the estate of the testator, or, at all events, to one undivided third part thereof. Mr. C. T. Simpson, for the widow, argued that there was an absolute gift of the two-thirds to the widow, subject to a discretionary trust to support the daughter, which had ceased on her marriage. Secondly, that the [292] widow was absolutely entitled to the remaining one-third, there being no precatory trust created by the expression that she would manage the property given to her " with prudence and care." He cited Carr v. Living (28 Beav...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arthur Pageitt Greene and Godfrey Greene, Infants, v John Greene and Others
...WoolsENR 2 Sim. N. S. 267. Robinson v. Tickell 8 Ves. 142. Hammond v. NeameENR 1 Swans. 35. Raikes v. WardENR 1 Hare, 445. Scott v. KeyENR 35 Beav. 291. Stacey v. Elph 1 Myl. & K. 191. Lowry v. FultonENR 9 Sim. 115. Davis v. Spurling 1 Rus. & Myl. 64. In re Badenach 10 Jur. N. S. 521. Montg......
-
Agnes Ryan and Mary Ryan v John Keogh, Catherine E. Keogh, Mary A. Keogh, and Thomas Ryan
...16 Sim. 1. Longmore v. Eleum 2 Y. Coll. Ch. C. 363. Crockett v. CrockettENR 2 Phil.553. Carr v. LivingENR 33 Beav. 474. Scott v. KeyENR 35 Beav. 291. Byne v. BlackburnENR 26 Beav. 41. Badham v. MeeENR 1 Russ. & My. 631. Webb v. kellyENR 9 Sim. 472. Lewe v. LewesENR 16 Sim. 266. Bayne v. Cro......
-
Talbot and Wife v O'Sullivan
...10 Sim. 371. Raikes v. WardENR 1 Hare, 445. Shovelton v. ShoveltonENR 32 Beav. 143. Ware v. Mallard 21 L. J. Ch. 355. Scott v. KeyENR 35 Beav. 291. Biddles v. BiddlesENR 16 Sim. 1. Howarth v. DewellENR 29 Beav. 18. Reeves v. BakerENR 18 Beav. 373. Lambe v. EamesELR L. R. 6 Ch. 597. Greene v......