Turner against Turner
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 November 1783 |
| Date | 11 November 1783 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 28 E.R. 1155
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See In re Rivett-Carnac's Will, 1885, 30 Ch. D. 141.
turner against turner. [30 June, 10,11 Nov. 1783.] [See In re Rivett-Carnac's Witt, 1885, 30 Ch. D. 141.] Lords Commissioners, Lord Loughborough, Ashhurst, Hotham.-[S. C. Ambl. 776.]- N. T. devised an annuity of 300 per annum to his wife for life, then to accumulate to make a portion for his first daughter who should marry; then, in order to raise portions for other daughters ; then to remain to his eldest son, and, on his decease, to the heirs-male of his body, and in case of his having no issue, remainder to his next eldest son and his heirs-male. The daughters married in the life of the wife ; the eldest and two other sons of testator died, leaving the wife without issue. This is not personal estate, vesting absolutely in the eldest son (on the principle, that it would be an estate-tail in land); neither does it vest as an executory devise in the fourth son of testator who survived, but it is an annuity, and being exhausted by the events, there being nobody to take it as such, sinks into the residuary estate of the testator. (See passim in E. Stafford v. Buckley, 2 Yes. 170, 177, 178, 179, 180, &c., and in Priddy v. Rose, 3 Merivale, 86, 101, &c.) Nathaniel Turner, Esq. by his will, dated 7th January 1734, gave to his wife, Elizabeth Turner, 300 per annum during her life, to be paid annually by his executors, and after her death the said 300 per annum should be improved by his executors, to make a fortune to be given to his first daughter who should marry, after the decease of 1156 TURNER V. TURNER .1 BED. 0. 0. 317. his said wife, with the consent of the executors; and after one of his said daughters should he married, then to he improved, to make a fortune for the rest of his daughters' marriages, one after another ; and when all his daughters were married, that the said 300 a year should be given, and remain to his eldest son, Nathaniel Richard Turner, and on his decease to the heirs-male of his body; and in case of his having no issue male, then the same should remain to his next eldest son, and the heirs-male of his body ; and gave the residue, real and personal, among all his children, to he equally divided : and appointed his three brothers executors [in trust]. He died soon after, leaving ten children, vie. five sons, named Nathaniel Richard Turner, Richard Farmer Turner, John Worthington Turner, William Turner, and Charles Turner, and five daughters. -Soon after his death, Sarah, one of the daughters, died, and the mother took out administration to her.-Soon after, a bill was brought in Chancery, in the name of the nine surviving children, against the mother as administratrix of Sarah, and against the executors for an account of the personal estate, and a distribution of the residue, according to the will.-A decree was obtained for that purpose on the 2d April 1736, which directed the executors to pay the widow the 300 a year, and to Set apart a sum to answer the same.-The Master reported the [317] accounts, &c., as directed, and interest, and that 7500 South Sea annuities had been set apart, and reserved by the executors to answer the annuity of 300, which he deducted out of the clear residue, and then divided what remained into ten parts. By an order of 27th February 1737, on the petition of Elizabeth Turner the widow, stating her apprehension that 7500 South Sea annuities was not a sufficient security to answer the annuity, it was referred to the Master to set apart so much of the personal estate as would be sufficient.-The Master reported that he had set apart 10,000, part of 20,000 old and new South Sea annuities, to answer the annuity of 300. Nathaniel Richard Turner died in the lifetime of the widow his mother, without issue, having made his will, and devised the residue of his estate whatsoever and wheresoever, unto John Turner deceased, and plaintiff, upon trust for the several persons therein mentioned, and appointed them executors.-Richard Farmer Turner, John Worthington Turner, and William Turner afterwards died, without issue, in the lifetime of the said Elizabeth their mother.-The daughters had been satisfied their portions out of the rents and profits, in the lifetime of the mother.-Elizabeth the mother died 8th July 1782. The bill was brought by the plaintiff, surviving executor and trustee of Nathaniel Turner, to have the directions of the Court as to the 10,000 South Sea annuities, and the annuity secured by it. And the questions were, whether the 300 per annum, under the will of Nathaniel Turner vested (subject to the life-estate of the wife, and to the accumulation for providing fortunes for the daughters) in Nathaniel Richard Turner, and passed by his will; or whether the same was part of the estate of Nathaniel Turner the elder undisposed of, and distributable among his next of kin ; and also, whether Charles, in the events which have happened, took any, and what interest in the same, other than as claiming a distributive share of the undisposed estate of Nathaniel, or under the will of Nathaniel Richard...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Trusts of The Annuity of $600 Given by the will of John Wynch, Deceased and the act of The 10th & 11th Vict. (c. 96), for Better Securing Trust Funds, and for The Relief of Trustees. ex parte Wynch
...is "a fee-simple conditional." We see then that this kind of limitation is recognised by the law. This was followed in Turner v. Turner (1 Bro. C. C. 316); and in that case an annuity out of personalty was held to be a fee-simple conditional, upon the same rule of construction. The only cas......
-
Blewitt v Roberts and Others
...and which may be considered as the foundation of His Honour's judgment in the present case. The cases of Turner v. Turner (1 Bro. C. C. 316), Innes v. Mitchell (6 Ves. 464, and 9 Ves. 212), Livesey v. Livesey (3 Russ. 287), Exports Annandale (4 Deac. & Ch. 511), Jones v. Randall (1 J. & W. ......
-
Taylor v Martindale
...it was an annuity in fee, and on the death of William Howe it descended to his heir. Co. Litt. 144 b. Turner v. Turner (Amb. 776, and 1 Bro. C. C. 316); Earl of Stafford v. Buckley (2 Ves. sen. 171); 1 Williams on Executors, p. 522. Mr. Loftus Wigram, for the personal representative of Will......
-
Richardson v Nixon
...v. Wallis 4 Y. & C. 336; affirmed on appeal, Phil. 202. Butt's case 7 Co. 101. Butt's case 7 Vo. 104. Turner v. TurnerENRENR Amb. 776; 1 Bro. C. C. 316. Stafford v. Buckley 2 Ves. 171. Taylor v. MartindaleENR 12 Sim. 158. Denton v. Davy 1 Moore, Pri. Col. Cases, 15. Cowley v. CowleyENR 9 Si......