Stanley v Jackman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 1857 |
| Date | 11 February 1857 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 53 E.R. 177
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 5 W. R. 302.
[450] stanley v. jackman. Feb. 10, 11, 1857. [S. C. 5 W. R. 302.] A father directed a fund, given to his daughter, to be settled " upon her and her issue," so that " the same might not be liable or subject to the debts, control or engagements of any husband " whom she might happen to marry during her lifetime. Held, that the settlement ought to give the daughter a power of appointment by will, in default of issue. Form of settlement in such a case. Bydeed,dated in 1811, William Stanley conveyed some freehold property to trustees, upon trust to sell after his decease and invest the produce, and to pay the dividend to his wife for life, and after her decease, upon trust for all his daughters by his late and present wife, " share and share alike, the shares of such daughters to be vested interests in them at the age of twenty-one years or marriage, which should first happen, and to be settled on them as thereinafter mentioned. And in case any such daughters should die under the age of twenty-one years and unmarried, then the share of her or them so dying of and in the said Bank annuities should go and accrue to the survivor or survivors of them." And upon further trust, subject to the life interest of his widow, " to settle and assure the share of each such daughters of and in the same Bank annuities upon her and her issue, so and in such manner and form as that the same might not be liable or subject to the debts, control or engagements of any husband or husbands whom any such daughter or daughters [451] should happen to marry during the lifetime of any such daughter or daughters." The settlor died in 1825, leaving his widow and several daughters surviving. 178 STANLEY V. JACKMAN MBEAV.4M. In 1851 one of his daughters, Elizabeth, who had attained twenty-one, married Frederick Durrant; and she died in 1855, without having had any issue, leaving her husband surviving her. By her will, made in 1854, she appointed all her share of the property to her sister Jane absolutely. No settlement had been made pursuant to the directions of the deed, and the question was, what the proper limitations of such settlement ought to have been, and whether they ought to have excluded the marital right of Mr. Durrant, under the circumstances which had occurred. Mr. R. Palmer and Mr. W. J. Bovill, for the Plaintiff. Mr. Lloyd and Mr. A. Smith, for other parties. Mr. Selwyn and Mr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Dunnill's Trusts
...D. 288, at p. 293. (1) 1 Russ. 1, at p. 45. (2) [1898] 1 I. R. 244. (1) [1898] 1 I. R. 244. (2) Ir. R. 6 Eq. 322. (3) 17 Beav. 515. (4) 23 Beav. 450. (5) L. R. 4 Eq. (1) Ir. R, 6 Eq. 322. (2) 17 Beav. 515. (3) 23 Beav. 450. (4) L. R. 4 Eq. 122. (5) L. R. 4 H. L., 543, at p. 566. (6) [1898] ......
-
Harris v Loftus
...v. Viscount HolmesdaleELR L. R. 4 H. L. 543. Sibley v. Perry 7 Ves. 522. Sibley v. Perry I. R. 10 Eq. 81. Stanley v. JackmanENR 23 Beav. 450. Stonor v. CurwenENR 5 Sim, 264. Sweetapple v. BindonENR 2 Vern. 536. Thompson v. Simpson 1 Dr. & War. 459. Walter v. ParrottELR 33 Ch. D. 274. Young ......
-
Re Dunnill's Trusts
...1 S. & St. 429. Wagstaff v. Smith 9 Ves. 520. Alexander v. YoungENR 6 Hare, 393. Turner v. SargentENR 17 Beav, 515. Stanley v. JackmanENR 23 Beav. 450. Gilbert v. LewisUNK 1 D. J. & S. 38. Massy v. BowenELR L. R. 4 H. L. 288. Loch v. BagleyELR L. R. 4 Eq. 122. Gift of Property to separate u......
-
Eustace v Robinson
...Before LORD O'HAGAN, C., DEASY and FITZ GIBBON, L.JJ. EUSTACE and ROBINSON Stanley v. JackmanENR 23 Beav. 450, 455. Loch v. BagleyELR L. R. 4 Eq. 122. Turner v. SargentENR 17 Beav. 515, 519. In re Dunnill's Trusts I. R. 6 Eq. 322. Blackburn v. StablesENR 2 V. & B. 369. Jervoise v. The Duke ......