Webster v Boddington
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 1848 |
| Date | 10 March 1848 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 60 E.R. 840
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Appointment. Power.
[177] webster v. boddington. March 10, 1848. Appointment. Power. Testator empowered his executors for the time being to advance to his nephew any sum or sums of money not exceeding 30,000. The executors exercised the power to the extent of 20,000. Held, that they were not precluded thereby from making a further advance to the nephew. The caae of Brown v. Nisbett, 1 Cox, 13, observed upon. The testator in this cause empowered his excutors for the time being to advance to his nephew any sum or sums of money not exceeding 30,000. The executors exercised the power to the extent of 20,000; and the question was whether, as they had done so, they were not precluded from advancing a further part of the 30,000 to the nephew. Mr. Lloyd, for the Plaintiff, said that some doubt was thrown upon the question by the case of Brown v. Nisbett.(\) Mr. Rolt appeared for the Defendants. the ViGE-CHANCELLOR [Sir L. Shadwell]. The judgment attributed to the Lord Chancellor in the case cited is not very intelligible ; but the effect of it seems to be that, after the husband and wife had executed the power jointly, it could not be exercised by the survivor of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krantzcke v Robinson and Others
...192. Hervey v. HerveyENR 1 Atk. 561. Zouch v. WolstonENR 2 Burr. 1145. Versturme v. GardinerENR 17 Beav. 338. Webster v. BoddingtonENR 16 Sim. 177. Doe v. MilborneENR 2 T. R. 721. Marriage settlement — Power to raise money for use of wife — Repeated exercise of power. M. R. 1882. KRANTZUKE ......
-
Bevan v Bevan
...BEVAN and BEVAN Herry v. HerreyENR 1 Atk. 561. Zouch v. Woolston 2 Bur. 1136. Doe v. MilborneENR 2 T. R. 721. Webster v. BoddingtonENR 16. Sim. 177. Cuninghame v. Anstruther L. R. 2 Sc. App. 223; see also Krantzcke v. Robinson, 11 L. R. I.500 Maultby v. Maultby 2 Ir. Ch. R. 32. Mosley v. Mo......