Walcott against Hall and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 February 1788 |
| Date | 23 February 1788 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 29 E.R. 167
LINCOLN'S INN HALL
walcott against hall and Others. Lincoln's Inn Hall, 23 Feb. [1788]. Master of the Rolls for Lord Chancellor.-Legacy to A. payable at 21 or marriage, with interest, a vested legacy (vide Hoath v. Hoath, 2 Bro. 0. 0. 3, and 1 Roper on Legacies, 182 et seq.), and executor having become bankrupt, might have been proved under the commission, his certificate therefore a bar, and the residuary legatees not liable. (See Orr v. Kaines, 2 Ves. 194, and Supplement, 324. Moore v. Moore, 2 Ves. 596, 600. Anon. 1 P. W. 495, and Mr. Cox's statement of the principal case, in his note to the 5th edition. See also note at end of this case. Lord Redesdale's notes refer to a case of Malin v. Hooper, 19th March 1797, and add, " where a legatee ought to refund, it must be in cases where the payment at the time " of making it would amount to a devastavit.") John Pearce, by his will dated 14th of November 1771 (int. al'.). bequeathed to .his godson Thomas the plaintiff, the sum of £50, to be paid to him at the age of 21 years, or day of marriage, which should first happen, the same to be put out at interest in the name of his executors and administrators, the interest arising therefrom from time to time, to be applied towards his maintenance and education; and if he should die before 21 or marriage, he gave the legacy to his executors in trust for the poor of Stoke, and gave the residue of his personal estate to three married women, who with their husbands were defendants, and appointed the defendant Charles Pearce Hall executor. [306] The testator died in 1772, and the defendant Hall proved the will, retained £50 for the payment of the legacy to plaintiff, and paid over the residue (after payment of debts and other legacies) to the residuary legatees, and afterwards became bankrupt, and obtained his certificate. The plaintiff, having attained his age of 21, filed the present bill against the executor, and residuary legatees, for payment of the legacy, or an account of the assets of the testator. Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Mitford (for the plaintiff) contended, 1st. That the residuary legatees are liable, in default of the executors, to the payment of this legacy. If an executor becomes insolvent, the legatees paid by him voluntarily must refund. 2 Vesey, 194. The distinction is between a voluntary and a compulsory payment. 1 Wms. 495. The residuary legatees were bound to see to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fenwicke v Clarke
...Beav. 211); Lewin on Trusts (page 332); Massey v. Banner (1 Jac. & W. 241); Pennell v. De/etl (4 De G. M. & (1 372); Walcott v. 'Hall (2 Bro. C. C. 305). Mr. Bacon, Mr. Hislop Clarke and Mr. Bagshawe, for the Defendants. Mr. Malins, in reply. the lord justice kniuht bruce. In this case, whe......
-
The Right Hon. JOHN RICHARDS, one of the Barons of HM Court of Exchequer, CAROLINE RICHARDS, Widow, CAROLINE MARIA RICHARDS, otherwise WOODHOUSE, and another, v CROASDAILE MOLONY, HENRY MOLONY and Others
...18 Ves. 384, 390. Dundas v. BlakeUNK 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 138. Smith v. SmithENR 2 Vernon, 178. Walcott v. HallENRENR 1 P. Wms. 495; S. C. 2 Bro. C. C. 305. Woodward v. D'Arcy Plowd. 185. Sheridan v. JoyceENR 1 Jo. & Lat. 401. David v. Frowd 1 M. & K. 200. Wankford v. WankfordENR 1 Salk. 299, 30......