Stileman v Ashdown et Al
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 December 1742 |
| Date | 08 December 1742 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 688
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Dummer v. Pitcher, 1833, 2 My. & K. 273; Crabb v. Crabb, 1834, 1 My. & K. 517; Mackay v. Douglas, 1872, L. R. 14 Eq. 120.
[473] Case 292.-green an Infant versus ekins, burnaby and elizabeth his Wife, and Others, December 6, 1742. [See Hodgson v. Earl of Bective, 1863, 1 H. & M. 397 ; Shelley v. Shelley, 1868, L. E. 6 Eq. 546 ; Chamberlayne v. Brockett, 1872, L. K. 8 Ch. 212.] S. C. 3 P. W. 306, N. F.; S. C. cited, 2 Yes. 430.-The question was whether the interest of the residue of G.'s personal estate, from the death of Frances his daughter to the time it will vest in the plaintiff his grandson, must be accumulated, or whether it is an interest undisposed of, and goes to the next of kin of the testator. Lord Hardwicke was of opinion that the interest must accumulate, and is a part of the residue, till the devise to the son of Mr. Burnaby vests. A bill was brought by the plaintiff, who is the eldest son of the defendant Burnaby, by Elizabeth his wife, who was the only daughter of Mr. Green, deceased, by his first wife, to have the trusts of the will of Mr. Green, his grandfather, performed, and to have marriage articles, made before the marriage of his father and mother, carried into execution, for his benefit, upon the following case. Mr. Green, who was a brewer, had issue by his first wife, the defendant Elizabeth, who, in his life-time, had privately, and without his consent, married Mr. Burnaby; and by his second wife had issue another daughter, named Frances, who, at the time of making this will, and at his death was an infant; and having a. very considerable real estate, and a very large personal estate, devised several particular legacies to his wife, and to Mrs. Burnaby, and his daughter Frances; and gave directions to have his trade carried on after his death, for the benefit of those who should be intitled to the residue of his estate : and all the residue of his personal estate, he devised to any son he should have by his wife, at his age 6f twenty-one; and if no son, then to 686 GREEN V. EKlNS 2 ATK. 474. his daughter Frances, to be paid to her at her age of;twenty-one, or marriage : but if it should happen, that his daughter Frances should depart this life before twenty-one, or marriage, and he should have no other daughter born of his second wife, who should attain twenty-one, or marriage, then, and in such case, if his daughter Elizabeth Burnaby should liave issue of her body one or more son or sons, he gave and bequeathed the residue of his personal estate to such son of his said daughter as should first attain the age of twenty-one; but if his daughter should have no such son or sons, or having such son or sons, none should attain the age of twenty-one, then, and in such case, he gave and bequeathed the residue of his personal estate to William Ekins Pier, a defendant in this cause, subject to the payment of 4000 to the daughter of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
William Hyde, since Deceased, v Mary Price, John Price, William Price, William Mann Godshall, Thomas Shearcroft, Edward Walwyn Shepherd, and William John Playters, all since Deceased, and The Governor and Company of the Bank of England; and George Hart v Chase Cradock, William Temple, George Maule, and William Brown and Mary, his wife
...earlier. The old doctrine on this head is laid down by Sir John Leach in Gaunt v. Taylor, 3 Mylne & Keen, 302. In Stileman v. Aslulawn, 2 Atkyns, 477, where the bill was by the executor of a judgment creditor for the satisfaction of his single debt, interest was decreed. The principle is th......
-
Cadogan v Cadogan
...seem to be so general, in order to take in all persons who shall he any ways hindred or delayed,". 18 We were also referred to Stileman v. Ashdown reported in the same volume of Atkyns' Reports at page 481, and to Mackay v. Douglas, reported in Law Reports, 14 Equity, page 106, which indica......
-
Bott v Smith
...e. 5; 2 Chitty's Statutes (Beavan & Welsby's ed. 163); Twyne's case (2 Rep. 81 b.); Cadogan v. Kennett (Cowp. 432); Stileman v. Ashdvwn (2 Atk. 477); Mathews v. Feaver (1 Cox, 278); Dewey v. Bayntun (6 East, 257); French v. French (V.-C. Stuart, 21st June 1855, and 6 De G. M. & G. 95). [514......
-
Berrington v Evans
...v. Collins (17 Ves 27). The principle is that whatever you would have had at law, you bring with you into equity. Slileman v. Ashdown (2 Atk. 477, 608), Eail of Bath v Earl of Bradford (-2 Ves. 587), [279] Thomas v. Edwaids (3 Anstr. 804), and Seton v Cloak (6 Ves 416), were cited. Mr. Jaco......