Wildes v Davies
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 March 1853 |
| Date | 09 March 1853 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 65 E.R. 208
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 22 L. J. Ch. 495; 1 W. R. 253. Explained, In re Appleton, 1885, 29 Ch. D. 893.
[475] wildes v. davies. March 7, 9, 1853. [S. C. 22 L. J. Ch. 495; 1 W. E. 253. Explained, In re Appletm, 1885, 29 Ch. D. 893.] A testator gave his freeholds and copyholds upon trust for his son, a lunatic, absolutely; and, in case he should not recover, upon trust for sale, the proceeds to be held upon trusts to pay certain legacies without any gift of the residue. By an unattested codicil he gave other legacies in the like event, and made three persons his residuary legatees. Held, that although the unattested codicil did not affect the freeholds, the legacies thereby given were a charge on the copyholds; and that the residuary legatees therein named were also entitled to the proceeds of the sale of the copyholds. A testator directed trustees, out of the income of his estate, to pay a fixed annual sum to his son, a lunatic, and to accumulate the surplus until his death or recovery, with a trust, in ease his son should recover, to pay the accumulations to the son, and he appointed residuary legatees. Held, that the direction to accumulate beyond twenty-one years was void under the Thellusson Act, and the gift being of the whole of the testator's effects, it was not (though for the benefit of a son) . within the 2d section of that Act; and that the accumulations in excess vested in the heir of the testator as personal estate. A testator, by a codicil, gave to M. £200, and named him joint executor with the executors in the will; and in case the testator's son should die lunatic, then he gave £200 to the said M. Held, that the latter gift was not annexed to the office, and that M. took, though he did not prove the will. This was a legatees' suit, commenced in 1834, for the administration of the estate of a testator, Charles Hippuff, who died in December 1815. The testator was possessed of considerable freehold, copyhold and leasehold estates, and money in the funds, and other personal property. He was a widower, having an only son, Charles Duncan Hippuff, a person of unsound mind, though not so found by inquisition. The son continued in that state until his death in 1846. The testator made a will and three codicils. By his will, dated the llth of August 1815, the testator [476] devised all his freehold, copyhold and leasehold messuages, lands, tenements and hereditaments unto Marshall Walter Clifton and George Davies, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, upon trust, out of the rents, to pay such sums of money, not exceeding 1SM. & GIFF. 477, WILDES V. DAYIES 209 the yearly sum of £400, for the maintenance and benefit of his son, Charles Duncan Hippuff, during the continuance of his then malady, as they should think fit; and to invest the residue of the rents, issues and profits during the life of his son, or until his recovery from his then malady, in the public stocks or funds, or on Government or real securities; and also the interest and dividends of such stocks, funds and securities, in the purchase of like stocks, funds and securities, so that the dividends, interest and produce might accumulate during the life of his son. On his recovery, and when it should be certified in manner therein mentioned that his son was capable of managing his own affairs, then he gave, devised and bequeathed the freehold, copyhold and leasehold estates, and such accumulations of rent, issues and profits thereof, unto his son, Charles Duncan Hippuff, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns ; but in case his son should not recover from his then malady, then, after the decease of his said son, he gave, devised and bequeathed all his said freehold, copyhold and leasehold estates unto the said Marshall Walter Clifton and George Davies, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns respectively, upon the usual trusts for sale; and he directed them to hold the purchase-monies upon the trusts thereinafter declared. The testator gave several legacies, payable immediately after his death. He then gave his personal estate upon the same trusts for accumulation as were declared of his real estate. The testator declared that his trustees should stand possessed of the monies to arise from the sale of his said freehold, copyhold and leasehold estates, and the accumulations to arise from the rents and profits thereof, and also the stocks, [477] funds and securities in which the residue of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heywood v Heywood
...Drewett v. Pollard '(27 Beav. 196); Barringtm v. Liddell (2 De G. M. & G. 480); Bourne v. Buckim (2 Sim. (N. S.) 91); Wides v. Da-vies (1 Sm. & G. 475). That although the Thellusson Act did not apply to property in Ireland, yet it was applicable in this case, inasmuch as Mr. Heywood was dom......
-
Watson v Arundell
...Page v. Leapingwell 18 Ves. 463. Doe d. Tofield v. TofieldENR 11 East, 246. Alleyne v. AlleyneENR 2 Jo. & Lat. 544. Wildes v. DaivesENR 1 Sm. & Giff. 475. Pitman v. StephensENR 15 East, 505. Court v. Buckland 1 Ch. Div. 609. Allen v. Maddock 11 Moore, P. C. C. 427, 443. In the Goods of John......
-
Hamilton v Foot
...1 Burr. 268. Hardacre v. NashENR 5 T. R. 716. Evans v. CrosbieENR 15 Sim. 600. Bryan v. Munton 1 Russ. & Myl. 503. Wildes v. DavisENR 1 Sm. & Giff. 475. Crooke v. De Vandes 9 Ves. 197; S. C 11 Ves. 330. Legge v. Asgill 1 T. & Russ. 265. Boyse v. Morgan 3 Myl. Cr. 661. Guinness v. Guinness 1......
-
Bryson v The Warwick and Birmingham Canal Company and Others
...way of forfeiture on the non-completion of the purchase, those sums which are sought to be recovered in this suit. 208 WILDES V. DAVIBS 1SM. & GIFF. 475. If I am right in that view of the contract, and that view of the construction of this suit, the only parties liable to restore the money ......