Varley v Winn
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 July 1856 |
| Date | 02 July 1856 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 69 E.R. 963
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 25 L. J. Ch. 831; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 661; 4 W. R. 792. See Olive v. Westerman, 1884, 53 L. J. Ch. 527.
Will. Lapse. Executory Bequest. Investment. Interest.
[700] varley v. winn. July 2, 1856. [S. C. 25 L. J. Ch. 831; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 661; 4 W. K. 792. See Olive v. Westerman, 1884, 53 L. J. Ch. 527.] Will. Lapse. Executory Bequest. Investment. Interest. If there be an executory bequest of personalty depending either upon the determination of a preceding limited interest, or upon a collateral event defeating an 964 varley v. winn 2K.&j.7oi. interest previously given, and such limited interest determine, or such collateral event happen during the lifetime of the testator^ the executory bequest does not lapse. Accordingly, where there was a bequest to the testator's five daughters of £6000 each, to be invested by the executors within seven years from the testator's death, " in trust for them or their children, but if any. of my said daughters should die leaving no issue, then the share or portion so invested shall be divided amongst those who have issue, share and share alike, as they arrive at the age of twenty-one years; and if only one, the whole to go to that one only." One daughter died without issue in the lifetime of the testator. Held, that the £6000 given to her passed by the gift over to those of the testator's daughters who were living at his death, and had issue then living, absolutely. Held, also, that the words above printed in italics ought to be read as though in a parenthesis. Held, further, that, as the estate was sufficient to pay them at the testator's death, interest must be paid upon the legacies from a year after the testator's death, the direction for investment being for -the convenience of the estate, and not for the benefit of the residuary legatee. John Varley, by his will, dated in 1849, after appointing the Plaintiffs and Samuel Musgrave executors thereof, and after directing the payment of all his just debts, [701] funeral and testamentary expenses, gave and bequeathed as follows :-" I give and bequeath unto my executors all my household furniture, books, plate, linen, china, and other effects of household whatsoever, in or about my dwelling-house at the time of my decease, to be divided equally betwixt all my children, share and share alike. I give to each of my daughters Esther, Hannah, Ann, Harriet, and Sarah Elizabeth, £1000, to be paid to them respectively at the end of one year from the time of my decease, without interest. I also give unto each of my five daughters aforesaid the sum of £2000, to be paid to them respectively within four years after my decease, the interest to be paid half-yearly at £4 per cent, per annum, to be computed from the end of one year after my decease. I also give unto my five daughters a further sum of £6000 each, which said sum of £6000 to each.of them shall be invested in real or Government securities by my executors within seven years, to be computed from the time of my decease, but such investment shall be in the names of my executors, in trust for them or their children; but if any of my said daughters should die leaving no issue, then the share or portion so invested shall be divided amongst those who have issue, share and share alike, as they arrive at the age of twenty-one years ; and if only one, the whole to go to that one only. And as my son Eichard Varley is dead and has left issue, I give and bequeath unto my executors, in trust, until such child or children arrive at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of £10,000,. to be invested in real or Government securities within one year after my decease,, and the interest arising to be appropriated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kellett v Kellett
...C. Court. KELLETT and KELLETT Varley v. WinnENR 2 K. & J. 700. Humberstone v. StantonENR 1 V. & B. 385. Greene's Estate 1 Dr. & S. 68. Habergham v. RidehalghELR L. R. 9 Eq. 395. Cox v. Dolman 2 De G. M'N. & G. 592. Young v. Lord WaterparkENR 13 Sim. 204. Assignees of Bermingham I. R. 4 Eq. ......
-
Porter's Trust and The Trustee Relief Act
...substitution as persmce designate: Edwards v. Saloway (2 De G. & Sm. 248; S. C. on appeal, 2 Phill. 625). They cited also Farley v. Winn (2 K. & J. 700), Ive v. King (16 Beav. 46), Hodgson y. Smithson (21 Id. 354 ; S. C. on appeal, 26 Law J. (N. S.) Ch. 110), Ashling v. Knowles (3 Drew. 593......
-
Walsh v Blayney
...Ch. Div. 60. Potter's TrustsELR L. R. 8 Eq. 52. Hotchkiss's TrustsELR L. R. 8 Eq. 643. Webster's Estate 23 Ch Div. 737. Varley v. WinnENR 2 K. & J. 700. Christopherson v. NaylorENR 1 Mer. 320. Loring v. Thomas 1 Dr. & S. 497. Barnaby v. TassellELR L. R. 11 Eq. 363. Gowling v. Thompson Ibid.......