Waterman v Smith
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 January 1840 |
| Date | 28 January 1840 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 59 E.R. 501
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 4 Jur. 672.
Appointment. Power.
[629] waterman v. smith. Jan. 28, 1840. [S. C. 4 Jur. 672.] Appointment. Power. A power given to a husband and wife was required to be exercised by them by any deed or writing under their hands and seals, to be by them executed in the presence of and attested by two witnesses. Held, that a deed which was signed as well as sealed and delivered by the husband and wife in the presence of two witnesses was not a good exercise of the power, because the attestation clause did not extend to the signature, as well as to the sealing and delivery. By the settlement made previously to the marriage of Isaac Baugh with Charlotte, his wife, and dated the 31st August 1785, Isaac Baugh covenanted that his heirs, executors or administrators should, within three months after his death, pay to trustees the sum of 20,000 in trust, in case Charlotte Baugh should survive him and there should be issue of the marriage living at his decease, to invest the 20,000 on the usual securities, and to pay the interest thereof to Charlotte Baugh for her life, and, after her decease, in trust to assign, pay, apply and dispose of the sum of 6000, part of the 20,000, and the interest and proceeds thereof, to and for the use and benefit of all or any one or more of the children of the marriage, and in such proportions, parts [630] or shares, and payable in such manner and at such respective times as I. Baugh and Charlotte, his wife, by any deed or writing under their respective hands and seals, to be by them executed in the presence of and attested by two or more credible witnesses, should direct or appoint; and, for want of such joint direction or appointment, then as Charlotte Baugh (she surviving the said I. Baugh) by any deed or writing under her hand and seal, to be by her executed in the presence of and attested by two or more credible witnesses, should in like manner direct or appoint. f| There was issue of the marriage two children, Edmund and Charlotte, the latter of whom intermarried with Wm. Hare. I. Baugh and Charlotte, his wife, by a deed-poll, under their hands and seals, dated the 2d February 1819, directed and appointed, in exercise of the powers given to them by the settlement, that, in case Edmund Baugh should die unmarried and without issue, then the trustees should stand possessed of the 6000, in trust for Mrs. Hare, her executors and administrators, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vincent v The Bishop of Sodor and Man and Others
...1 Taunt. 355), M'Queen v. Farguhar (11 Ves. 467), [311] Hougham v. Sandys (2 Sim. 95), Mademley v. Sison (8 Sim. 561),. Waterman v. Smith (9 Sim. 629), Stanhope v. Keir (2 S. & S. 37), Simeon v. Simeon (4 Sim. 555), Lempriere v. Falpy (5 Sim. 108; Shep. Touch. 411), Warren v. Postle- 4DEG.&......
-
Sir Francis Burdett, Bart, and Others, - Plaintiffs in. Error; John Doe, on the several Demises of the Rev. Francis Ward Spilsbury, Clerk, and Another, - Defendant in Error
...Sim. 108), Curteis v. Kenrick (3 Mee. and W. 461), Mackenley v. smom- (8 Sim. 561), Brook v. Wilson (6 Mee. and W. 473), Waterman v. Sm*& (9 Sim. 629), ^e v. Bradshaw (1 Curt. Ecc. Rep. 110). [345] All these cases will be found again cited and their application explained, in the subjoined o......
-
Sir Francis Burdett, Bart. and Others, v Doe dem. Spilsbury and Another. Skynner and Others v The Same
...that of Waterman v. Smith, decided by the same learned judge, the Vice-Chancellor of England, so lately as the year 1840, and reported in 9 Simons, 629. There, the only question was, as to the validity of an appointment made under circumstances exactly the same as those which existed in Wri......
-
Barnes v Vincent and Others
... ... The cases of Doe dem. Mansfield v. Peach (2 Mau. and Sel. 576), Wright v. Barlow (3 Mau. and Sel. 512), and Waterman v. Smith (9 Sim. 629), are to the same effect. But in Simeon v. Simeon (4 Sim. 555), Curteis v. Kenrick (3 Mee. and Wei. 461), Ward v. Swift (1 Crom ... ...