Turner and Others v Robinson and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 March 1821 |
| Date | 27 March 1821 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 127
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Multifariousness.
[313] turner v. robinson and others. March 27, 1821. Multifariousness. Where under a will the residuary legatees are also appointees of a share of another testator's estate a bill filed by them for an account of both estates is not multifarious. William Woolcott, deceased, by his will, after giving several legacies, bequeathed the residue of his estate to trustees, upon trust, within one year after his youngest child should attain the age of twenty-one years, to sell and dispose thereof, and to divide the monies arising from the sale equally amongst all his children, share and share alike; and he directed that the shares of such of them as were sons should be paid to them as soon as such shares could be ascertained, and that the shares of such of them as were daughters should be laid out on Government or real securities, in the names of hia trustees, upon trust to pay and apply the interest and dividends arising therefrom for their separate use; and that their shares of the capital stock or principal money should be disposed of, after their decease, to such persons as they, by any deed or writing under their hands and seals to be duly executed, or by their last will aud testament in writing to be executed in like manner, should appoint. The testator left ten children surviving him. Mrs. Esmand, one of those children, and the mother of the Plaintiffs, Mrs. Turner and Miss Esmands, by her will [314] (which was executed so as to be a due execution of the power given to her by her father's will) disposed of all her interest, to be derived under that will, in favour of Mrs. Turner and Miss Esmand, and also gave them the residue of her own personal estate. The bill was filed against the personal representatives of both William Woolcott and Mrs. Esmand, aud against the surviving children of the former; aud after stating the wills of W. Wollcott and Mrs. Esmand, it contained the usual charges as to their personal estates, possessed by their respective personal representatives, and prayed that the trusts of those wills might be carried into execution; that an account might be taken of W. Woolcott's personal estate possessed by his personal representatives; that the Plaintiffs' shares of the residue of that estate might be paid to them; and also that an account might be taken of Mrs. Esmand's personal estate possessed by her personal representative, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v Mackay
...l ; Ward v. Duke of Northttmlrr-land, 2 Anst. 469 ; Hamsun v. Ho /g, 2 Ves. jun. 323 ; Aland v. Acklom, 2 Sim. 331 ; Turner v. Robinson, 1 Sim. & St. 3J3, & 6 Mad. 94 ; H'iU v. limham, 2 S. & S. 91 ; Mayor, tic., of London v. Levy, 8 Ves, 403 ; Kluickell v. Macuuky, 2 Sim. & St. 79. Cae.ii ......
-
Prosser v Rice
...and new mortgage; the mortgage to the building society has ceased to exist and cannot be set up against the Plaintiff; Parry v. Wright (1 Sim. & S. 3G9); Tonlmin v. titeere (3 Mer. 210). Secondly, it appears that Messrs. Lechmere & Co. claim under Thomas, and they say that, having got in [7......
-
Johnson v Hodgens
...v. Phillips 2 Yo.& Coll. (Exch.) 589. Ellice v. GoodsonENR 3 My, & Cr. 653. Mansell v. Feeney 2 Johns.& Hemm. 313. Turner v. RobinsonENR 1 Sim. & St. 313. Atkinson v. HanwayENR 1 cox, 360. Davis v. ChanterENR 2 Phil. 545. Faulkner v. DanielENR 3 Hare, 208. Robinson v. BellENR 1 De G. & Sm. ......
-
Between HM Attorney General, at the Relation of the Honourable William Francis Spencer Ponsonby and Others, Ratepayers in the Borough of Poole, Informant; and the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the said Borough of Poole, and Thomas Arnold and Robert Henning Parr, Defendants
...(1 Keen, 700 ; and 2 Mylne & Craig, 406), Vernon v. Vwnon (2 My. & Cr. 145), Campbellv. Mackay (1 Mylne & Craig, 603), Turner v. Hobinnm (1 S. & S. 313), Milwivnl v. Thatcher (2 T. pl. 81), The Attorney-General v. Jackson (II Ves. 36fi), Lumsden v. Fraser (1 Mylne t Craig, 589), Castle's ca......