Shovelton v Shovelton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 January 1863 |
| Date | 12 January 1863 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 56
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 1 N. R. 226. See In re Williams [1897], 2 Ch. 18.
[143] shovelton v. shovelton. Jan. 12, 1863. [S. C. 1 N. R. 226. See In re Williams [1897], 2 Ch. 18.] A testator gave the residue of his personal estate to his wife, " for her own absolute use and benefit, in the fullest confidence that she would dispose of the same, for the benefit of her children, according to the best exercise of her judgment and as family circumstances might require at her hands." Held, that the widow was entitled for life, with a precatory trust in remainder in favor of her children. The testator, by his will, gave as follows:- " I bequeath unto my dear wife Anne all my household goods, furniture, books, and other effects, and all the ready money of which I may be possessed, together with all moneys due to me from the funds of the Wesleyan connection, and all moneys assured to me by my policy in the Star Life Assurance Society, for her own absolute use and benefit, she paying thereout all my just debts and funeral and testamentary expenses. I bequeath unto each of my daughters the legacy of 300 apiece, to be paid to them on and when they shall respectively attain the age of twenty-one years. And subject thereto, I bequeath all the rest and residue of my personal estate and effects, whatsoever and wheresoever, unto my said dear wife, to awl for her own, [144] absolute use and benefit, in the fullest confidence that she will dispose of the same for the benefit of her children, according to the best exercise of her judgment and as family circumstances may require at her hands." He appointed his wife, his brother, and his nephew to be his executors. 32BBAV.MS. SARAZIN V. HAMEL 57 Mr. Bristowe, for the children, argued that the widow took beneficially for her life, with remainder to her children as she should appoint, in the nature of a precatory trust; Gully v. Cregoe (24 Beav. 185); Wace v. Mallard (21 L. J. (Ch.) 355). He argued that as the executors had severed in their defences, only one set of costs ought to be allowed ; Attorney-General v. Wyville (28 Beav. 464). Mr. Walford, for two executors. Mr. Selwyn, for the widow, argued that she took...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arthur Pageitt Greene and Godfrey Greene, Infants, v John Greene and Others
...148, 173. Palmer v. SimmondsENR 2 Drew. 221. Barnes v. Grant 26 L. J. N. S. Ch. 92; S. C. 2 Jur. N. S. 1127. Shovelton v. ShoveltonENR 32 Beav. 143. Gully v. CregoeENR 24 Beav. 185. Bonsar v. KinnearENR 2 Giff. 195. Wace v. Mallard 21 L. J. N. S. Ch. 355. Webb v. WoolsENR 2 Sim. N. S. 267. ......
-
Reid v Atkinson
...and Burgesses of Gloucester v. WoodENRENR 3 Hare, 131; S. C. 1 H. L. C. 272. Wood v. Cox 2 Myl. & Cr. 684. Shovelton v. ShoveltonENR 32 Beav. 143. Brook v. BrookENR 3 Sm. & Giff. 280. Harding v. Glyn 2 Wh. & Tud. L. C. 860. Williams v. WilliamsENR 1 Sim. N. S. 368. Briggs v. PennyENR 3 De G......
-
McCormick v Grogan
...2 Mad. 458. Evans v. Evans 33 L. J. Ch. 662. Wace v. Mallard 21 L. J. Ch. 355. Gully v. CregoeENR 24 Beav. 185. Shovelton v. ShoveltonENR 32 Beav. 143. Wallgrave v. TebbsENR 2 K. & J. 313. Jones v. BadleyELR L. R. 3 Eq. 635. Malim v. Keighley 2 Ves. Jun. 335. Meredith v. HeneageENR 1 Sim. 5......
-
Creagh v Murphy
...Johns. 276. Moss v. Cooper 1J. & H. 352. Reid v. Atkinson I. R. 5 Eq. 162, 373. Gully v. CregoeENR 24 Beav. 185. Shovwlton v. ShoveltonENR 32 Beav. 143. M'Cormick v. GroganELR L. R. 4 H. L. 82. Wynne v. Hawkins 1 Br. C. C. 179. Cox v. Cox 2 Br. C. C. 349. Pope v. PopeENR 10 Sim. 1. Pushman ......