Thornhill v Evans
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 July 1742 |
| Date | 02 July 1742 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 601
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
[329] Case 229.-haughton versus harrison, June 31, 1742. T. H. gives 500 by his will to be paid to his grandson T. P. if he lived to be 21, and in case he died before, then to the other child or children of his daughter M. P. equally, arriving to such an age. T. P. died before 21, and no child of M. P. was born or living at the testator's death. The grand-children born after the death of T. H. were intitled to the 500, for not being in es.se in his life-time, he must have had in his view the future children of his daughter. A question arose upon the will of Thomas Haughton, dated the 14th of October 1738.- " He gives a legacy of 500 to be paid to his grandson, Thomas Price, the son of Mary " Price, if he lived to be twenty-one, and in case he should die before, then to the other " child or children of his daughter, equally, arriving to such age." And after some small legacies, gave all the rest and residue of his personal estate to the plaintiff, and died the 18th of October 1738, and since his death, Thomas Price, his grandson, died under the age of twenty-one years, and there being no child or children of Mary Price born or living at the testator's death, the plaintiff insisted the five hundred pounds ought not to be raised, but sink into the residuum of the testator's, estate for the plaintiffs, benefit, . . , 2ATK. 330. THORNHILL V. EVANS 601 It was insisted likewise by the counsel for the plaintiff, the heir at law, and only son of the testator, that the latter legacy to the child or children of Mrs. Price is equally contingent with the legacy to Thomas Price, and must wait till they arrive at their age of twenty-one, and therefore does not carry any interest in the mean time. The counsel for the defendants, Mary Price and Pindock Price, the brother and sister of Thomas Price, insisted that the testator, in case of Thomas Price's death before 21, gave the five hundred pounds to the other child or children of his daughter equally, arriving to such age, and that Mary Price and Pindock Price are intitled thereto, though not born till after the testator's death ; and that the words, if Thomas Price lived to be twenty-one, must be taken in the same sense as the words, so soon as he attained his age of 21, would have been, and therefore not contingent as to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rondel v Worsley
...the reasons upon which it has been based possess today any current validity. Suffice it to say that the rule existed in 1742 when in Thornhill v. Evans 2 Atkyns 330, Lord Hardwicke L.C. proclaimed: "Can it be thought that this Court will suffer a gentleman of the bar to maintain an action ......
-
D'orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid
...and Duties, (1894) at 177. 381 See eg Swinfen v Lord Chelmsford (1860) 5 H & N 890 at 921 [ 157 ER 1436 at 1449]. 382 Thornhill v Evans (1742) 2 Atk 330 at 332 [ 26 ER 601 at 602]; Turner v Philipps (1792) Peake 166 [ 170 ER 116]. Physicians were treated as being in the same class: Veitch v......
-
Kennedy v Broun and Wife
...The first time, probably, that the doctrine of the honorarium found its way into a legal òreport was in the case of Thornhill v. Evans, 2 Atk. 330. The defendant, a barrister, having a mortgage from the plaintiff, had at the end of every six months turned the interest into principal at 5 pe......
-
Lord Ossulston contra Lord Yarmouth
...future interest, if not paid, shall be taken as principal, and bear interest, is void. 1 Chan. Cas. 229, 52, 258. 2 Chan. Cas. 35, 59. Vide 2 Atk. 330. Treatise of Equity 119. The Earl of Yarmouth made a mortgage to my Lord Ossulston, with a proviso, that if the interest was behind six mont......