Watkins v Cheek
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 February 1825 |
| Date | 02 February 1825 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 321
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Corser v. Cartwright, 1875, L. R. 7 H. L. 736; In re Venn and Furze's Contract [1894], 2 Ch. 113.
Legacy. Purchaser.
[199] watkins v. cheek. Jan. 25, Feb. 2, 1825. [See Cm-ser v. Cartwright, 1875, L. R. 7 H. L. 736 ; In re Venn and Furzes Contract [1894], 2 Ch. 113.] Legacy. Purchaser. Legacy charged upon real estate to vest immediately on the testator's death, but to be paid to the legatee on attaining twenty-one, and the interest to be applied in the V.-C. ii.-11 322 WATKINS V. CHEEK I 8IH. & ST. MO. meantime for maintenance, the legatee having died before attaining twenty-one. Held, that the express direction that the legacy should vest on the death of the testator prevents its sinking for the benefit of the devisee, and that the personal representative of the legatee was entitled to the legacy. Where real estate is devised, subject to debts and legacies, and the devisee is also executor, a purchaser or mortgagee from him of the real estate is liable to the charge, if the circumstances of the transaction afford intrinsic evidence that the mortgage or purchase-money was not to be applied for the debts or legacies. Richard Walker, by his .will, bequeathed to his two daughters, Jane and Sophia Walker, 1000 apiece, the same to vest in them immediately upon his death, but to be paid on their attaining their ages of twenty-one years, and the interest thereof, in the meantime, to be applied by his executrix in their maintenance and education; and he charged his real estate with the payment of those legacies; and, subject to the payment of his debts and funeral and testamentary expenses, which he desired might be paid by his executrix immediately after his decease, he gave all his real aud personal estate to his wife for ever, and appointed her sole executrix of his will. The testator died, leaving his wife and the two daughters named in his will, who were infants of tender age, him surviving. The widow proved the will; and the personal estate being insufficient for the payment of the testator's debts, she supplied the deficiency out of the rents and profits of the real estate. The widow afterwards married J. Watkins; and, by a settlement made previous to their marriage, the real estate of her first husband was conveyed to such uses as the widow should appoint by deed or will; and, for want of such appointment, to [200] the separate use of the widow for her life, with remainder to her two daughters, Jane and Sophia Walker, in fee. There were issue of this marriage two daughters, Margaret Watkins, who was born on the 19th June 1802, and Jane Watkins, who was born on the 27th of July 1804. The daughters of the first marriage both...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colyer v Finch
...(4 Myl. & Cr. 264); Stony v. Walsh (18 Beav. 559); Forbes v. Peacock (1 Phill. 717 ; reversing S. C. 12 Sim. 528); Watkins v. Cheek (2 Sim. & Stu. 199). Mr. Osborne, in reply, was stopped. the master OF the rolls. My present impression [506] is in favour of Mr. Finch, but I wish to read ove......
-
Howard v Robison
...true. They cited Humble v. Humble (2 Jur. 696): Ex parte Chadwin (3 Sw. 380);. Wilmolt v. Jenkins (1 Beav. 401) ; Watldns v. OheeJc (2 Sim. & Stu. 199). Mr. Little, for Mrs. Temple and.her children, claiming the other legacy, took the same line of argument. [241J Mr. Anderson and Mr. Karsla......
-
Richardson v Horton
...and legacies, as it would have [118] been in the hands of the executor. The same principle is applied to real estate." Watkins v. Cheek (2 Sim. & S. 199). The fact of notice makes this case differ from those decided. la Mathews v. Jonex (2 Anst. 506) the Defendants were not charged with not......
-
Between Sir John Kenward Shaw, Bart., John Cornwall, The Rev. Robert William Shaw, and The Rev. John Kenward Shaw Brooke, Plaintiffs; and William Borrer, Defendant
...(4 T. R. 621), Humble v. Bill (2 Vern. 444), Lloyd v. Baldwin (1 Ves. sen. 173), Doran v. Wiltshire (3 Swanst. 699), Waikiiui v. Cheek (2 Sim. & Stu. 199), Green v. Belcher (1 Atk. 505), Bonney v. Ridgard (1 Cox, 145), Allan v. [572] Backhouse (2 V. & B. 65), Booth v. Bhmdell (1 Mer. 193), ......