Smith v Brooksbank
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 June 1834 |
| Date | 27 June 1834 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 58 E.R. 743
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Demurrer. Parties.
[18] smith v. brooksbank. June 25, 27, 1834. Demurrer. Parties. A. bequeathed a reversionary interest, expectant on his wife's death, in a sum of stock to B. B. bequeathed it to C., and C. bequeathed it to D., who, on the death of A.'s wife, filed a bill against the trustees to have the stock transferred to him, (1) Affirmed by Lord Lyudhurst, C., 4 April 1835. 744 SMITH V. BROOKSBA.NK 7 SIM. 19. alleging that the executors of A. and B. and C. had successively assented to the bequests. Hold, that the executors were not necessary parties. The bill stated that Richard Braine, having, under his marriage settlement, power to dispose by will of the reversion, expectant on his wife's death, of 5000 consols (which, when the bill was filed, were standing in the names of the Defendants Brooksbank and Yewd) by his will, dated in 1807, duly appointed and bequeathed .1000 consols, part of that fund, to his brother Thomas Braine, and appointed his wife, Eliza Braine, and William Dunn his executors; that the testator died in 1811, and his widow alone proved his will, paid his debts, &c., and assented to the legacy; that Thomas Braine, by his will dated in 1810, bequeathed his reversionary interest in the 1000 consols to his wife, Elizabeth Braine, and made her his sole residuary legatee; that T. Braine died in 1811, and letters of administration, with his will annexed, were granted to his widow, who paid his debts, &c., and assented to the bequest of the 1000 consols; that Elizabeth Braine died in 1818, having, by her will dated in 1815, bequeathed her reversionary interest in the 1000 consols to her six children, and directed that the issue of such of them as should die in her lifetime should take their deceased parent's share, and she appointed her son, Joseph Braine, and William Hands and Thomas Harford her executors, and they proved her will, paid her debts, &c., and assented to the bequest of the 1000 consols, and particularly to the bequest of one-sixth part of that sum for the benefit of Eliza Smith, one of the testatrix's daughters, and [19] her issue ; that Eliza Smith died in her mother's lifetime, leaving the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Charles Smith (who was out of the jurisdiction of the Court) her children and only issue her surviving; that Eliza Braine died in 1827, and thereupon the legatees under the will of Elizabeth Braine became entitled to have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
William Galbraith Quinton v George Frith, and Others
...16 C. B. 653. Doe v. SturgessENR 7 Taunt. 217. Richards v. Richards 2 B. Ad. 447. Carter v. CarterENR 3 K. & J. 617. Smith v. BrooksbankENR 7 Sim. 18. Saunders' CaseUNK 5 Rep. 12, b. Doe v. SturgessENR 7 taun. 223. Morgan v. MorganENR 1 Atk. 489. Donner v. FortescueENR 3 Atk. 124. Bloomfiel......