White v St. Barbe
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 February 1813 |
| Date | 15 February 1813 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 35 E.R. 155
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Tucker v. Sanger, 1824, 13 Pri. 627; M'Cle. 451; Cutten v. Sanger, 1828, 2 Yo. & Jer. 466; Honner v. Morton, 1828, 3 Russ. 69; In re Gosset's Settlement, 1854, 19 Beav. 536. Fitzroy v. Duke of Richmond, 1859, 27 Beav. 192; In re Pocock's Policy, 1871, L. R. 6 Ch. 453; Cuninghame v. Anstruther, 1872, L. R. 2 Sc. Apps. 234; Morgan v. Gronow, 1873, L. R. 16 Eq. 10.
[399] white v. st. barbe. Rolls.' Feb. 9, 13, 15, 1813. [See Tucker v. Sanger, 1824, 13 Pri. 627; M'Cle. 451; Cutten v. Danger, 1828, 2 Yo. & Jer. 466 ; Banner v. Morton, 1828, 3 Russ. 69 ; In re Gosset's Settlement, 1854, 19 Beav. ,536. Fitzroy v. Duke of Richmond, 1859, 27 Beav. 192 ; In re Pocock's Policy, 1871, L. R. 6 Ch. 4-53 ; Cuninghame v. Anstruther, 1872, L. R. 2 So. Apps. 234i; Morgan v. Gronow, 1873, L. R. 16 Eq. 10.] Under a Power to appoint among Children Interests may be given to Grand-children byway of Settlement with the Concurrence of their Mother, an Object of the Power, and her Husband. Alexander Si. Barbe by his Will, dated the 2d of July 1797, disposed of his Property in the following Manner : " All Monies and Property belonging to me I give to my Wife Mrs. Christian " St. Barbe, in Trust for her to dispose of to our Children, and whenever she may " judge most proper for their Interest : she may, if she thinks proper, keep the " Whole for her Life, and then leave it to our Children ; and she may make Distinc-" tions in leaving rhore to one than the other, if she pleases, in order to make them " behave well : but the Whole of the Property must be given into the Family ; " except I give all the Household Goods, Plate, Linen, and China to Mrs. St. Barbe " for her to do with as she pleases, and as her sole Property." The Testator died in 1799, leaving Three Daughters : Elizabeth Fielder, Catharine Randolph, and Christian White. Mrs. St. Barbe having advanced Portions to each of her Daughters out of the Testator's residuary Estate, there remained, after those Advances, 4875 3 per cent. Bank Annuities, and 1561, 3s. Id. 5 per Cent. Navy Annuities. By a Deed of Appointment, dated the 28th of June 1806, reciting, that Christian St. Barbe was desirous, and had agreed, in exercise of her Power under the Will of her Husband to appoint the 4875 3 per Cents., and 1000 (Part of 1561, 5,?. Id.) Navy Annuities, ex-[400]-pectant on her own Decease, in Favor, and for the Benefit, of Christian White*: and that it had been agreed, and especially by Charles Henry While and Christian, his Wife, that the Funds so to be appointed should be settled upon the Trusts therein mentioned for the several Benefits of Christian While, and her Children ; and that, in order to declare and secure the respective Interest of Christian. While and her Children, in such Funds...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Topham v The Duke of Portland
...favour of another object has ever been held fraudulent. At the most this is only like the cases of resettlement; White, v. St. Barbe (1 Ves, & Bea. 399); Gfoldsmid v. Goldsmid (2 Hare, 187); and is the very converse of Dwubeny v. Cbdcburn (1 Mer. 626); for the arrangement is in favour of th......
-
Lady Mary Topham v The Duke of Portland
...(3 Jo. & Lat. 540); Askham v. Barker (12 Beav. 499, and 17 Beav. 37); Alexander v. Alexander (2 Ves. sen. 640); White v. St. Em-be, (1 Ves. & Bea. 399); Goldmiil v. Goldsmid (2 Hare, 187); Wright v. Go/ (22 Beav. 207); Lassence v. Tierney (1 Mac. & Gor. 551 ; 2 Hall & Tw. 115); Sawnden v. V......
-
Salmon v Gibbs
...the power, nor entitled in default of appointment. [They cited Sugden on Powers, page 261, Lane v. Page (Amb. 233), White v. St. Barbe (1 V. & B. 399).] Mr. Speed, for Mrs. Salmon. No corrupt motive for the appointment is imputed to the donee. Nor was the appointment made in consequence of ......
-
E. Tucker v J. S. Tucker E. Tucker v J. Sanger
...Lordship then stated fully, with corresponding comments, the cases of Rmdledye v. Di/rril (2 Ves. 357), and White v. [628] St.Barbe (1 Ves. & Bea. 399); and he observed (intimating that he would presently notice the objection raised by the proposition of Preston), that these also were infin......