West v Berney
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 January 1819 |
| Date | 27 January 1819 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 39 E.R. 167
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Shirley v. Fisher, 1882, 47 L. T. 111; In re Hirst [1892], W. N. 177. For Cunynghame v. Thurlow, 1 Russ. & My., 436 n. Approved In re Little, 1889, 40 Ch. D. 418. See In re Radcliffe [1891], 2 Ch. 662; [1892] 1 Ch. 227; In re Somes [1896], 1 Ch. 254.
[431] west r. bf,rney.(!) Jan. 27, 1819. ' [See Shirley v. Finhe-r, 1882, 47 L. T. Ill ; In re Hirst [1892], W. N. 177. For Cunynghame v. Tlmrlmv, 1 Russ. & My., 436 n. Approved In re Little, 1889, 40 Ch. D. 418. See In re Eculcli/n [1891], 2 Ch. 662 ; [1892] 1 Ch. 227 ; In re Sonifs [1896], 1 Ch. 254.] Learning as to what powers of appointment are capable of being extinguished or released. In this case the Master had reported that a good title was shewn; and exceptions were taken to the report. The question arose on the following instruments:- Sir John Berney, being seised in fee under a settlement made in 1789, conveyed the estate to the use of himself for life; remainder to such one or more of his sons as he should appoint; remainder, in default of appointment, to his first and other sons in tail; remainder to himself in fee. In 1811, on the occasion of the marriage of his eldest sou, Sir John Berney was a party to a deed of settlement, to which the intended wife was also a party, and to a fine and recovery levied and suffered in pursuance thereof, whereby the estate was limited to the use of Sir John Berney for life ; remainder to the use of Hanson Berney, his eldest son, for life ; remainder to the first and other sons of Hanson Berney in tail with clivers remainders over. And in this deed a power was given to the trustees, authorising them, at the request of Sir John Berney during his life, and, after his death, at the request of Hanson Berney, to sell the estate ; and after paying the incumbrances to which it was at this time [432] subject, to invest the produce in the purchase of other estates to lie settled to the same uses. Sir John Berney had not previously executed any appointment in favour of his eldest son ; and a doubt occurring whether he might not still execute his appointment iu favour of any other son, and so defeat the settlement, he, in 1815, executed a deed of appointment in favour of the eldest son in fee, reciting that it was for the purpose of confirming the marriage settlement of 1811. Against the title, it was urged by Mr. Preston, that the power of appointment in the deed of 1789 was merely...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lyons and Carroll's Contract, and The Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874
...603. Shirley v. FisherUNK 47 L. T. (N. S.) 109. Smith v. DeathENR 5 Madd. 371. Stuart v. Kennedy 3 Irish Jurist, 305. West v. BurneyENR 1 Russ. & M. 431. Vendor and purchaser — Conditions of sale — Title — Will — Gift by implication — Release of testamentary power — Derogating from grant ——......
-
Bickley v Guest
...Madd., 371), in conformity with the previous decision in Wed v. Berney (referred to in Sugden on Powers, p. 80, 4th edit., and reported 1 Russ. & My., 431), that the power of a father, who is himself tenant for life, to appoint in favour of children may be destroyed by the acts of the donee......
-
Badham v Mee
...even though the power be in gross, according to your Honour's decision in timith v. Dtailt, (5 Mad., 371), and [òfeat v. Bwnet/ (1 Russ. & My., 431), it has never been pretended that such a power òcan be destroyed by an innocent conveyance. It is true that the exercise of the power by the b......