Tiffin v Longman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 July 1852 |
| Date | 10 July 1852 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 543
ROLLS COURT
[275] tiffin v. longman. July 10, 185^, Bequest to A. for life; and afterwards, in an event (which happened), the testator directed advertisements to be made for his relations, to such only of whom as should claim within two months he left the property, to be divided according to the discretion of his executors. The executors died in A.'s lifetime: Held, that the next of kin of the testator, according to the statute, took equally, and that the class was to be ascertained at the death of A., and not at the death of the testator. The testator bequeathed the residue of his estate to his two executors, in trust for his daughter Mary Ann Dance; and he proceeded : " At the death of my daughter, I will the whole property vested in the funds and otherwise to her issue, provided she should have any ', and if more than one child, in equal proportions between them. But provided my daughter should die without issue, I then direct that advertisements shall be inserted in the daily papers for the space of one week, for the information of 544 ROBERTSON V. SHEWELL WBBAV.S78. my relations, to whom, that is to say, to such and to such only as shall make their claim within two months after such advertisements, I leave the before-mentioned property, to be divided between them according to the discretion of my executors, excepting my nephew Thomas Dance, who, in consideration of his conduct towards me, I leave the sum of one shilling only. Should I survive my daughter, I will my property to my relations above mentioned, with the exception of Thomas Dance, above mentioned." The testator died in 1811, and his two executors and trustees (Clarke and Dunbar) died in the lifetime of the daughter Mary Ann Dance. Mary Ann Dance died in 1851, without having been married. The Plaintiff was the administrator of the testator's widow and daughter. [276] Mr. Shapter, ior the Plaintiff, argued, that as the personal discretion to the executors could not now be exercised, and as the Court could not take upon itself to execute it, Fardyce v. Bridges (10...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reeves v Baker
...the word " relatives " that in the term " heirs," and that it must be construed next of kin according to the statute; Tiffin v. Longman (15 Beav. 275); Corporation, of Gloucester v. Osborn (1 H. L. Cas. 272); 2 Sued, on Pow. (pp. 262-264). the master of the rolls [Sir John Romillyl I am of ......
-
Lees v Massey
...is recognized in Say v. Creed (5 Hare, 580), Bradley v. Barlow (Ib. 589), and Wharton v. Barker (4 K. & J. 483). In Tiffin v. Lonffman (15 Beav. 275), relations were ascertained at a future period. Reyneir v. Mowbray (3 Bro. C. C. 234) is an authority which we do not dispute, but it ;had no......
-
Gorbell v Forrest
...not be a claimant after his own death, but the answer is that the gift is not to such as should be claimants, as in Tiffin v. Long-man (15 Beav. 275); but there is a positive bequest to the next of kin, with a gift over, in case of their not claiming within a particular time. Mr. Marett, fo......
-
Markham v Ivatt
...and therefore the persons who were nearest of kin of Mrs. Smith, living at the death of Mrs. Markham, are entitled; Tiffin v. Longman (15 Beav. 275); Jones v. Golbeck (8 Ves. 38). The testatrix desires a division to be made; that would be impossible if the Plaintiff's construction be correc......