Watson and his Wife and Others against Earl Lincoln and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 August 1756 |
| Date | 13 August 1756 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 218
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
[325] "Case 170.-watson and his wife and Others against Earl lincoln and Others. 9th and 13th August 1756. Advancement of portion on marriage of a daughter, and said to be in full of her portion or fortune, what provisions it extends to. [A provision by will by a father to a child is adeemed by a subsequent portion given by the father in his life-time.(l) The Court leans against double portions. (See Bellasis v. Uthwatt, I Atk. 427. Clark v. Sewell, 3 Atk. 98. Warren v. barren, 1 Bro. C. C. 308.) (This case is frequently cited under the title of Pelham v. Lord Lincoln.)-lib. Reg. 1755, B. fo. 512.] In the marriage settlement of Henry Pelham, deceased, in 1726, a term was created, to raise 10,000 for portions for daughters of the marriage, in case of failure of issue-male ; provided, if he should in his life-time give any of the portions thereby appointed to be raised, for or towards the preferment of any of his daughters in marriage or otherwise; or if there should on his death come or descend on them any lands or tenements from him; then such sums, and the value of such lands, should be deemed as part of the portions, unless Pelham should declare the contrary. By a settlement made by the Duke of Newcastle in 1741, inter alia, a term was created on the Nottinghamshire estate, to raise 10,000 to such younger children as Pelham should appoint. On 7th September 1748, Pelham having issue four daughters only, viz. the Countess of Lincoln, Frances, Grace, and Mary, made his will, and appointed the 10,000 under the first term to be raised for the benefit of all his daughters, except the Countess of Lincoln, at eighteen or marriage. He then directed the Nottinghamshire estate to be sold, after the death of the Duke of Newcastle, and the money to be divided among all his daughters, except the Countess of Lincoln, whom he had provided for with a . portion. He gave his estate at Esher to his daughter Frances, and her issue, in strict settlement, with remainder over to his other daughters in like manner. He gave his personal estate to his daughters, except the Countess of Lincoln ; and gave the residue of his real estate to all his daughters in tail, as tenants in common ; and in case any of them should become entitled to the Duke of Newcastle's estate, her interest in the above devises was to cease and go over. [326] By a codicil, .9th September 1751, he charged his estate at Esher with 5000 to each of his youngest daughters, as should not be entitled to the possession and enjoyment of the house and park at Esher; and adds a proviso, that if .any of his unmarried daughters should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powys v Mansfield
...see 548); Exparte Pye (18 Ves. 140, see 152, et seq.); Wetherby v. Dixon (19 Ves. 407); Brown v. Peck (1 Eden, 140); Watson v. Lord Lincoln (Amb. 325, see 327); RachJieU v. Careless (2 P. W. 158); Erown v. Seluin (Co.. temp. Talb. 240); Farnham v. Phillips (2 Atk. 215); White v. Evans (4 Ve......
-
James v Lord Wynford
...bequest: Turner v. Ogden, cited in Dawson v. Clarke (15 Ves. 409, 417), Williams v. Goodtitle (10 B. & 0. 895), Walker v. Earl of Lincoln (Amb. 325)^ and a number of other cases, all referred to in Doe d. Morris v. Underdown (Willes, 298). The [53] provision contained in the 25th section of......
-
The Earl and Countess of Glengall, - Appellants; Lady Edward Thynne, and Others, - Respondents
...a definite sum. In Fremantle v. Bankes (5 Ves. 79), Lord Rosslyn held it to be settled by the case of Watson v. The Earl of Lincoln (Blunt's Amb. 325), that a portion, which, ex vi termini, is a definite sum, could not be satisfied by a gift of residue of indefinite amount, and he [144] dis......
-
Douglas v Willes
...or benefited. The following authorities were referred to in the argument:-Weyland v. Weyland (2 Atk. 632), Watson v. Earl of Lincoln (Amb. 325), Noel v. Lord Walsingham (2'S. & S. 99), .Duke of BridgwaUr v. Egerton (2 Ves. 121), Boberts v. Dixall (2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 668, pi. 19), Bray v. Bree (2......