Upfull's Trust, and The Act 10 & 11 Vict. c. 96
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 May 1851 |
| Date | 13 May 1851 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 42 E.R. 269
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 21 L. J. Ch. 119. See In re Buckley's Trust, 1868, John, 701; In re Newbegin's Estate, 1887, 36 Ch. D. 482; In re Harris, 1880, 49 L. J. Ch. 327.
[281] In the Matter of upfull's trust, and in the Matter of the act 10 & 11 vict. c. 96. April 25, May 13, 1851. [S. C. 21 L. J. Ch. 119. See In re Buckley's Trust, 1868, John, 701 ; In re Newbegin's Estate, 1887, 36 Ch. D. 482 ; In re Hams, 1880, 49 L. J. Ch. 327.] Order made on a petition presented by guardians of the poor under the Trustees Relief Act, 10 & 11 Viet. c. 96, for payment to them out of a fund paid in by trustees in which a lunatic was interested of sums expended by the guardians in the support of the lunatic, the Lord Chancellor holding that by the Act the Court was placed in the position of the trustees, and that the trustees might have made the payment under the 7 & 8 Viet. c. 101, s. 27. This was the petition of the Guardians of the Poor of the Brentford Union, praying that so much as might be necessary of a sum of 350 3, 5s. per cent. Bank annuities, transferred into the name of the Accountant-General by the executors of Mary Upfull deceased, under the Act 10 & 11 Viet. c. 96, might be sold to reimburse to the said guardians a sum of 155, 14s. expended by them in the support and maintenance of Charles Upfull, a lunatic, and that no part of the residue might be sold or transferred without notice to the Petitioners or the guardians of the said poor for the time being. The following are the facts of the case as they appeared on the petition. Andrew Upfull, the father of the lunatic, by his will, dated the 29th March 1831, after appointing his wife Mary Upfull to be his sole executrix, gave in trust to her and for her own use and for the care and support of his son Charles Upfull, all the Bank stock of which he might be possessed at the time of his decease, empowering her to receive the dividends and to sell out of the principal stock every year so much as would, together with the dividend, amount in cash to 45, little more or less as need might require : and the testator declared that he gave his wife the above-named legacy in trust that she should take care of and provide for his said son, and he empowered his wife to sell out of the principal stock as much as she [282] might think sufficient, suppose 10 or more if needful: and the testator...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Hill
...Mac. & G. 234. In re GarnierELR L. R. 13 Eq. 532. In re Morgan 1 Hall & Tw. 212. In re StarkENR 2 Mac. & G. 174. In re Upfull's TrustENR 3 Mac. & G. 281. Newton v. ManningENR 1 Mac. & G. 362. Re Parker 2 W. R. 139. Re Ward's Estate 2 W. R. 406. Scott v. BentleyENR 1 K. & J. 281. .Voi..I.] C......