The University of London v Yarrow
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 1858 |
| Date | 24 November 1858 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 53 E.R. 440
ROLLS COURT
For previous proceedings, see 1 De G. & J. 72; 44 E. R. 649.
[472] the university of london v. yarrow. Nov. 24, 1858. [For previous proceedings, see 1 De G. & J. 72; 44 E. R. 649.] Trustees had the option of establishing a charity in either of two ways, the one valid, and the other invalid. The fund was ordered to be paid to them without any undertaking as to the mode in which they would apply it, and without any declaration or direction of the Court on the subject. The testator gave £20,000 consols for founding, establishing and upholding an institution for investigating, &c., the maladies of quadrupeds or birds useful to man, within a mile of either Westminster, Southwark or Dublin. At the hearing, it was declared that the bequest " was a good and valid bequest and ought to be carried into effect." (23 Beav. 159.) The decree was affirmed, on appeal, by the full Court. (1 De Gex & J. 72.) A petition was now presented by the Plaintiffs for payment to them of the fund, which consisted of £22,600 consols and £2364 cash. Mr. R. Palmer and Mr. Amphlett, in support of the petition. Mr. Lloyd, for the executors. Mr. Wickens, for the Attorney-General. The charitable gift is perfectly valid if the institution be established in Dublin, bub would be invalid if made in England, for it involves the bringing land into mortmain; Re Clancy (16 Beav. 295). The option makes the gift valid, but the [473] trustees must exercise it in such a way as to secure the validity of the charity. I do not ask, on behalf of the Attorney-General, for a scheme, but for some undertaking on the part of the trustees, or some declaration or direction of the Court, which will secure the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v DELANEY. [Exchequer.]
...HoweENR 29 Beav. 261. In re ParkerENR 4 H. & N. 666. The Attorney-General v. HopeUNK Ir. R. 2 C. L. 368. University of London v. YarrowENR 24 Beav. 472. The Attorney-General v. HopeUNK Ir. R. 2 C. L. 368. Trimmer v. Danby 4 W. R. 430. Mitford v. ReynoldsENR 1 Phil. 185. Merchant Taylors Com......
-
Dent v Allcroft
...to rather than to disappoint the intention of the donor. Thus, in the recent case of The University of London v. Yarrmu (23 Beav. 159 ; 24 Beav. 472 ; 1 De Gex & Jones, 72), the option of founding the charity by purchasing land either in England or Ireland, was held to render the gift valid......