Simpson v Paul
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1761 |
| Date | 01 January 1761 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 28 E.R. 808
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Disapproved, Mapleton v. Mapleton, 1859, 4 Drew. 515.
simpson v. paul. 1761. [Disapproved, Mapleton v. Mapleton, 1859, 4 Drew. 515.] Where there was a joint power to husband and wife of appointing a sum of money among children, with power in default thereof, for the survivor to appoint; a partial execution by both of the original power, was held to prevent the execution of the secondary power by the wife, who survived.-:9th & 10th March, 30th May 1761. -S. C. Coxe, MSS.; Serjt. Hill's MSS. By articles of agreement bearing date the 2d of January 1717, made previous to the marriage of Dr. George Paul with Susanna Malyn,a, fund of 10,000 was created for the issue of the marriage.; and it was agreed that if there should be two or more children, and one or more of such children should be a son or sons, then that 4000, part of the said 10,000, should be paid to such eldest son, and the remaining 6000 should. [35] be divided between such eldest son and such other child or children, in such shares and proportions, as the said George Paul, and the said Susanna, during their joint lives, or in default thereof the survivor of them, should, by any writing or writings under their hands, or the hand of the survivor of them, attested by two or more credible witnesses, direct or appoint; but in default of such appointment, the said 6000 was to be equally divided between such, eldest son and such other child or children, or the survivor of them, part or share alike, unless the said George Paul and the said Susanna, in their lifetime, or the survivor of them, by writing, subscribed and attested as aforesaid, should otherwise divide and apportion the same. There was issue of the marriage one son, the defendant, George Paul, and two daughters, Valentina, afterwards the [wife of Robert Snow, and the defendant, Susanna Paul. Upon the marriage of the said Robert Snow with the said Valentina, Dr. Paul and Susanna his wife, by deed-poll, bearing date the 30th March 1743, appointed, that 2000, part of the money in the said marriage articles, after the decease of the said George Paul and Susanna his wife, should belong to the said Valentina as her share of the sum; and the said Valentina and Robert Snow, her intended husband, released all claim, &c. Dr. Paul by his will, bearing date the 4th of October 1752, desired the said Susanna Paul to be very kind to her two daughters, Valentina Snow and Susanna...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Kuan Keh Lan and Others; Ong Ah Goh
-
Foster v Cautley
...to participate in the residue, which is incorrectly assumed to be an un-[61]-appointed fund. We rely on the authority of Simpson v. Paul (2 Eden, 34), recognized and approved by Sir W. Wood in Lee v. Head (1 K. & J. 620). The case of Wilson v. Piggott (2 Ves. jun. 351) may at first sight be......
-
Mapleton v Mapleton
...over, but to and under a power which could not be exercised in our favor. It was therefore bad. They referred to Simpson v. Paul (2 Eden, 34); Sugd. Powers (vol. 2, pp. 218, 235 (6th edit.) ; vol. 1, p. 358 (6th edit.) ) ; Lee v. Head (1 Kay & John. 620) ; Bristowe v. Warde, (2 Ves. jun. 33......
-
Walmsley v Vaughan
...Mrs. Vaughan from participating in the unappointed 6000, Wilson v. Piggatt (2 Ves. J. 351; Sug. Pow. II., 217, 7th ed.), Simpson v. Paul (2 Eden, 34), Wambwell v. Hanrott (14 Beav. 143). In Foster v. Cceutley (6 De G. M. & G-. 55) there were special words which took the case out of the gene......