Thwaites v Foreman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 July 1844 |
| Date | 27 July 1844 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 63 E.R. 477
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Affirmed, 10 Jur. 483. See In re Hardy, 1881, 17 Ch. D. 803.
[409] thwaites v, fokeman. July 27, 1844. [Affirmed* 10 Jur. 483. See In re Hardy, 1881, 17 Ch. D. 803.] Testator directed his trustees to stand possessed of the residue of his estate upon trust, in the first place, to pay what might be due under his covenant to L S., and then, upon trust, set apart and invest a sufficient sum to satisfy certain annuities which he bequeathed by his will; and, in the next place, after making suck investment as aforesaid, upon trust to pay the several pecuniary legacies bequeathed by his will. The assets were insufficient to pay all the legacies and annuities in full. Held, that the annuitants had no priority over the legatees in respect of payment. Semble, that a legatee who asks a decree for immediate payment of his legacy ought to pray for it by his bill. Henry Thwaites, by his will, dated the 25th July 1839, appointed Robert Foreman and John B. Stapely the trustees and executors thereof, and gave to them the sum of £750 each for their trouble in the execution of his will. And the testator, after making various specific devises and bequests, and after giving legacies to his several daughters amounting in the whole to about £23,000, legacies to his grandchildren amounting to about £8000, various other considerable pecuniary legacies (including a legacy of £1100 to his housekeeper, which he directed to be paid within six months after his decease), then a legacy of £100 and several legacies of £25 and £10 to his servants (which he directed to be paid as soon as conveniently might be after his decease), and after devising a real estate in fee to Robert Foreman, and giving him a legacy of £350 (which he directed to be paid within twelve months after his decease or sooner), gave and devised all his other real estates (including an estate in Sussex), and all his monies, securities for money, goods, chattels and personal estate, not thereinbefore specifically disposed of, unto and to the use of his said trustees, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, upon the trusts following (that is to say), as to the realty, upon trust to sell and convey the same to the purchasers thereof (in the usual form). And as to all debts and sums of money due to the testator at his decease, upon trust to collect and get in the same as soon after his decease as the same conveniently might be, or as the same debts, according to the testator's [410] custom in his lifetime, ought to be paid. And the testator declared and directed that his trustees should stand and be possessed of the monies arising from the sale of his said residuary real estates, and such part of his personal estate as thereinafter directed to be sold, and also, of the monies to be collected and got in as aforesaid as the same several monies should respectively be received and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
RSPCA v Sharp
...that it was the intention of the testator that the bequests should not stand upon an equal footing"—see per Knight Bruce V-C in Thwaites v. Foreman (1884)1 Coll. 409, 414, cited by Warrington J in In re Harris, Harris v. Harris [1912] 2 Ch. 241. See also Blower v. Morret (1752) 2 Ves. Sen ......
-
Gyett v Williams
...charge of legacies. The £100 and £150 are charged, and the previous gifts must follow the same rule. [They also cited Thwaites v. Foreman (1 Coll. 409), Minor v. Wicksteed (3 B. C. C. 627), Eavestaff v. Austin (19 Beav. 591), Dunboyne v. Brander (18 Beav. 313), Hasle-wood v. Green (28 Beav.......
-
Miller v Huddlestone
...(2 Y. & C. (C. C.), 193; 1 Phil. 629), Darbonv. Richards {14 Sim. 537), Attorney-General v. Pouklen (3 Hare, 555), Thwaites v. Foreman (1 Coll. 409), m-oughton v. Oolquhown (1 De G. & S. 357). [522] Nov. 5. the lord chancellor [Truro]. This is an appeal from an order of the Vice-Chancel lor......
-
Nickisson v Cockill
...The authorities referred to were the following:- 782 NICKISSON V. COCKILL 3 DE 0. J. & a. 838. For the Appellants: Thwaites v. Foreman (1 Coll. 409); Miller v. Huddlestme (3 Mac. & G. 513); Bench v. Biles (4 Madd. 187); Cole v. Turner (4 Euss. 376); Sugden on Powers (vol. 2, p. 174); The Ph......