The 10th & 11th Vict c. 96. and The Trusts of the Will of Bridget Feltham, Widow
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 June 1855 |
| Date | 12 June 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 69 E.R. 568
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Bequest. Mistake. Name. Address. Evidence. Prior Will. Trustee Relief Act. Costs.
F528] In the Matter of the 10TH & 1 ith vict. c. 96. And in the Matter of the trusts of the will of bridget feltham, Widow. June 6, 12, 1855. Bequest. Mistake. Name. Address. Evidence. Prior Will. Trustee Relief Act. Oogfs. A bequest to T. T. of E. There was a J. T. of B.., a nephew of the testatrix, and his brother, named T. T., who was not of E. Held, that T. T. might adduce extrinsic evidence to shew that he was in some sense rightly described as of E.; and that ik.&j.529. in re peltham's trusts 569 J. T. might bring evidence to shew that there was a mistake in the name of the legatee; and a prior will being produced, made three years before, in which the testatrix gave a legacy to T. T. of R., surgeon, which was the profession of J. T., was held to be conclusive evidence in his favour, as it was not shewn that the testatrix had discovered her mistake as to the name before she made her last will. By her will, dated in 1850, Bridget Feltham bequeathed " to Mr. Thomas Turner, of Regency Square, Brighton, the sum of one hundred pounds." Her executors paid this legacy into Court, under the Trustee Relief Act, alleging that there was no person answering the above description, but that James Turner, of Regency Square aforesaid, surgeon, and his brother the Rev. Thomas Turner, then of Little Preston, Daventry, both nephews of the late husband of the testatrix, respectively claimed to be entitled to the legacy. Thomas Turner now petitioned for payment of the fund to him. [529] Much evidence was adduced, and the question was whether there was such an ambiguitas latens as authorised the admission of any part of it. The evidence, which was admitted by the Vice-Chancellor, is referred to sufficiently in the judgment. Mr. Willcock, Q.C., and Mr. P. J. White, for the Petitioner, contended that evidence was not admissible, because the description by name was,right, and the address should be disregarded; but that if evidence were admitted, then upon the admissible evidence the Petitioner was entitled to the legacy. They cited Blundell v. Gladstone (1 Ph. 279), Doe d. Le Chevalier v. Huthwaite (3 B. & Aid. 632), Doe, d. Hiscocks v. Hiscocks (5 M. & W. 363). Mr. Rolt, Q. C., and Mr. J. J. H. Humphreys...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henderson v Henderson
...304. (2) 7 Ch. Div. 197. (3) 34 Ch. D. 255. (4) Ir. Rep. 5 Eq. 140. (5) Ir. Rep. 9 Eq. 418. (6) 5 M. & W. 363. (7) 12 Ad. & El. 451. (8) 1 K. & J. 528. (9) [1902] 1 I. R. 538. (10) 10 Ha. 345. (11) L. R. 5 C. P. 380, 727. (12) L. R. 7 H. L. 364. (13) 1 Ves. Jun. 412. (14) 2 P. & D. 46. (15)......
-
Re Leake's Trusts
...to justify the trustees paying the fund into Court; Re Wylly's Trusts (28 Beav. 458); William's Settlement (4 Kay & J. 87); Be FeUham 1 Kay & J. 528). Mr. Selwyn, in reply, referred to Greenwood v. Wakeford (1 Beav. 576); and see Howard vj Rhodes (1 Keen, 581); Coventry v. Coventry (1 Keen,......
-
Re Noble's Trusts and The 11 & 12 Vict. C. 68
...Standen 2 Ves. Jun. 589. Lord Camoys v. BlundellENR 1 H. L. C. 778. Lord Camoys v. BlundellENR 1 H. L. C. 786. In re Feltham's TrustsENR 1 K. & J. 528. Ryall v. HarmanENR 10 Beav. 536. Douglas v. FellowsENR 1 Kay, 114. Fleming v. Fleming 1 Hur. & Colt. 242. In re Gregory's Settlement 11 Jur......
-
Gallagher v Ferris
...Taylor on Ey., ss. 1009, 1210 ; Feltham's Trusts (4), Camoys v. Blundell (5). Mr. C. O'Connor, for the executor. (1) 10 Hare 345. (4) 1 K. & J. 528. (2) Ir. R. 9 Eq. 415. (5) 1 H. L. C. 778. (3) 10 Beay. 537. ...