Tennant v Heathfield
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 1855 |
| Date | 12 December 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 857
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 25 L. J. Ch. 197; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 33.
[266] tennant i . heathfield. Dec. 11, 12, 1855. [S. C. 25 L. J. Ch. 197; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 33.] As a general rule, when a bequest is to take effect after the failure of a prior gift, the total failure of the latter does not prevent the ulterior bequest taking effect. Distinction between a series of limitations all dependent on the same contingency, and successive limitations, each intended to take effect upon the failure of all those prior to it. Gift to A. for life, and after her decease to her children, and in case of their death before the vesting of their shares, in trust for her next of kin. The daughter never had any children. Held that her next of kin were nevertheless entitled. The testator gave one-third of his residuary personal estate in trust for the separate use of his daughter Sarah, the wife of the Rev. Robert Style, for life, and after her decease in trust for her children, as she should appoint, and in default of appointment, in trust for the children in equal shares as follows:-"To be paid, transferred or assigned to such child or children in manner following (that is to say), to a son or sons at his or their age or ages of twenty-one years respectively, or to be sooner advanced or paid for or towards his or their preferment or advancement in the world respectively, at the discretion of my trustees, arid to a daughter or daughters at her or their age or ages of twenty-one years or day or days of marriage respectively, which shall first happen. Provided always, and I do hereby declare my will to be, that in case such child or any of such children, being a son or sons shall attain his, her or their age or ages of twenty-one, or being a daughter or daughters shall attain such age or be married in the lifetime of their mother, the other shares of such child or children respectively of or in the trust moneys, and as well by survivorship or otherwise, shall, from thenceforth, be considered as vested in such child or children respectively, and be transmissible, but shall not be paid till after the death of his or their mother respectively. Provided also, and I do hereby likewise declare, that in default of such direction or appointment as aforesaid, and in case such child or all or any of such children of my daughter Sarah shall happen to die before his, her or their share or shares respectively of [266] or in the said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamilton v Mills
...837); Jones v. Colheck (8 Ves. 38); Briclen v. Hewlett (2 Myl. & K. 90); [196] Butler v. Bushnell (3 Myl. & K. 232); Tennant v. HeathfieM (21 Beav. 255); In re Porter's Trust (4 K. & J. 188). Mr. Hawkins, for the executors of Mrs. Harding, argued that, the survivor being entitled for life, ......
-
Osborn v Bellman
...(Free, in Ch. 316; Eq. Gas. Abr. 245, pi. 10), Murray v. Jones (2 V. & B. 313), Avelyn v. Ward (1 Ves. sen. 420), Tennant v. Heathfield (21 Beav. 255), Warren v. Rudall (4 K. & J. 603), MacMnnon v. Sewell (2 M. & K. 202), Fearne's Contingent Rem. (p. 510), and 2 Jarman (cap. 50, p. 751, 3d ......
-
Brock v Bradley
...where the Court has held that the condition has been substantially fulfilled, as Jones v. Westcomb (Free. Ch. 361); Tennantv. Heathfield (21 Beav. 255); Murray v. Jones (2 Ves. & B. 313); Mackinnon v. Sewell (5 Sim. 78, and 2 Myl. & K. 202); Hall v. Warren (2 Kay & J. 614); Avdyn v. Ward (1......