Stooke v Stooke
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 March 1866 |
| Date | 12 March 1866 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 949
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 14 W. R. 564. See In re Pringle, 1881, 17 Ch. D. 823.
[396] stooke v. stooke. March 12, 1866. [S. C. 14 W. R. 564. See In re Pringle, 1881, 17 Ch. D. 823.] A testator gave a house and 300 " of lawful money" to his daughter, and " the remainder of all his moneys, in whatever it may be, in bonds or consols or anything else," to his wife. Held, that the wife was entitled to all the testator's residuary personal estate invested in any security, including a life policy, but not to a leasehold or furniture or chattels. The testator, who had five children, died in 1864. By his will, he gave to each of his three sons some house property, and to one of his daughters a house and 300, and then proceeded in the following words :- " And I give to my daughter Elenora Stooke, the house occupied by Mr. Lucas, and if she dies without issue then to come back to my sons, to be divided equally alike between the three, and I likewise give 300 of lawful money of Great Britain to my daughter Elenora. The remainder of all my moneys, in whatever it may be, in bonds or consols or anything else, I give to my wife for her sole use, as long as she shall live, but not to give it away from my sons and daughters at her death, but to-give it to either or divide it equally between the whole. I give to my two sons, Charles and Richard, the yard and garden what I bought of Mr. Brewer's executors, to be divided equally between them, but the part next to Mr. Miller's to be Richard's." The testator was possessed of a leasehold called " The Ivy Cottage," held for a term if three persons should so long live, and he had effected a policy for 450 payable on the death of the survivor of the cestuis que vie. There were also furniture, culinary articles, china, glass, wearing apparel, plate, wine and a pony carriage in and about the Ivy Cottage, of the estimated value of 141. The question in the cause was, whether this cottage [397] and the other articles passed under the words "the remainder of all my moneys." Mr. Baggallay and Mr. Rowcliffe, for one of the next of kin, cited Lowe v. Thomas (5 De G. M. & G. 315). Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Marten, for the widow, cited Montagu v. The Earl of Sandwich (33 Beav. 324); Stocks v. Sarre (John. 54); Rogers v. Thomas (2 Keen, 8); Hinves v. Hinva (3 Hare, 609). Mr. Southgate, for all the Defendants except the widow. the master of the rolls [Lord Romilly]. It is very difficult to construe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boardman v Stanley
...v. CowlingENR 26 Beav. 449. In the Goods of o'LoughlinELR L. R. 2 P. & D. 102. Dunally v. Dunally 6 Ir. Ch. R. 540. Stooke v. StookeENR 35 Beav. 396. Thomas v. JonesUNK 1 D. J. & S. 83. Grosvenor v. DurstonENR 25 Beav. 97. Pownall v. GrahamENR 3 Beav. 244. Gosden v. Dotterill 1 M. & K. 56. ......