Wheatley v Purr
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 March 1837 |
| Date | 04 March 1837 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 48 E.R. 419
ROLLS COURT.
S. C. 6 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 195; 1 Jur. (O. S.), 133.
[551] wheatley v. purr. March 4, 1837. [S. C. 6 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 195; 1 Jur. (O. S.), 133.] A sum of £2000 was by the direction of H. O. carried by her bankers to an account in the joint names of herself, as trustee for the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs; the bankers gave a promissory note for the amount payable in fourteen days with interest at 2£ per cent, to H. O., trustee for the persons therein named. After the death of H. O. her executors received from the bankers the sum secured by the promissory note. Held, that the transaction amounted to a complete declaration of trust, and that the executor was a trustee for the Plaintiffs in whose favour the trust was declared. Harriet Oliver, by her will, dated the 1st of September 1835, bequeathed to George Oliver and Susan Oliver the sum of £2000 and other benefits, and appointed Simpson, since deceased, and the Defendant Purr, executors of her will. In September 1862, Susan Oliver intermarried with John Wheatley : she died on the 16th of July 1831 in the lifetime of the testatrix, leaving three children, issue of 420 WHEATLEY V. PUEB 1 KEBN BB2. the marriage, who were the infant Plaintiffs, John Eichardson Wheatley, Susanna Mary Wheatley, and Harriet Wheatley. [652] In the year 1833 the testatrix Harriet Oliver had in the hands of her bankers Messrs. Oakes & Co. of Sudbury in Suffolk, the sum of .£3000, upon which sum the bankers allowed her interest at 1\ per cent. In the month of June in that year she gave notice to Messrs. Oakes & Co., by Charles Partridge, her confidential servant, that she would draw out the sum of £3000 so deposited in the month of July following. She accordingly, on the 1st July, delivered to Partridge a promissory note for £3000, which had been given by the bankers in acknowledgment of the deposit, and she desired him to deliver the same to the bankers, and to direct the bankers to place £2000 in the joint names of the Plaintiffs and her own, as trustee for the Plaintiffs, and to bring back the remaining £1000 with the interest accrued thereon. Partridge executed those instructions, and the sum of £2000 was entered in the books of the bankers, to the account of Harriet Oliver, as trustee for John Richardson Wheatley, Mary Wheatley, and Harriet Wheatley, and the following receipt or order given for it:- "Sudbury Bank, July 1st, 1833.-Fourteen days after sight I promise to pay Mrs. Harriet|Oliver, trustee for John Eichardson Wheatley, Mary Wheatley, and Harriet Wheatley, or order, two thousand pounds, with interest at 2\ per cent.-For Oakes, Brown, Moore, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v Audland
...v. Marten, 2 Myl. & Cr. 459. (1837) Holloway v. Headington, 8 Sim. 324. (1837) Ward v. Audland, 8 Sim. 571. (1837) Wheatley v. Z'wrr, 1 Keen, 551. (1838) Collinson. v. Pattrick, 2 Keen, 123. (1838) Ward v. Audland m rehearing, C. P. Cooper, 146. (1839) Dillon v. Cbppw, 4 Myl. & Cr. 647. (18......
-
Meek v Kettlewell
...Leighton (3 Mer. 667); Wethered v. Wethered (2 Sim. 183); Hyde v. White (5 Sim. 524); Lyde v. Mynn (1 Myl. & K. 683) ; Wheatley v. Purr (1 Keen, 551); Tufnell v. Constable (8 Sim. 69); Holloway v. Headington (8 Sim. 324); Co. Litt. (Butler), 265 a. n. 1. Mr. Robson, for the trustees. the vi......
-
Talbot v Cody
...4 K. & J. 204. Mews v. MewsENR 15 Beav. 529. Grant v. GrantENR 34 Beav. 624. Richards v. RichardsENR 2 B. & Ad. 447. Wheatly v. ParrENR 1 Keen. 551. Smith v. WardENR 15 Sim. 56. Fowkes v. PascoeELR L. R. 10 Ch. App. 243. Hopkins v. AbbottELR L. R. 19 Eq. 222. Marshall v. CrutwellELR 8 L. R.......
-
Kekewich v Manning
...it against the Defendants. Of Antrobus v. Smith (12 Ves. 39) we need say no more than has already been said. As to Wheatleyv. Purr (1 Keen, 551), (the re-[201]-port of which has "1835 "for " 1825," and seemingly an incorrect marginal note), the author of the trust could have transferred the......