William Pulteney, Esq., and Frances his wife, Plaintiffs; The Earl of Darlington and Others, Defendants
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 March 1783 |
| Date | 24 March 1783 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 28 E.R. 1095
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See In re De Lancey, 1869, L. R. 4 Ex. 358; In re Gordon, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 537.
william pulteney, Esq., and frances his wife, Plaintiffs; The Earl of darlington I )t. and Others, Defendants. [See In re De Lancey, 1869, L. E. 4 Ex. 358 ; In re Gordon, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 537.] In Court, Mich.lT18. Lincoln's Inn Hall, 24th March 1783.-[S. C. affirmed on appeal, 7 Bro. P. C. 530, 8vo edit. Quod vide.]-[Where money devised to be laid out in land i actually comes into the hands of the person who would be entitled to dispose of the lands if purchased, the money is his absolute property ; and will pass by a general bequest of his personal estate.(l)] Money left by will to be laid out in land; the trustee, being entitled to the money, lays part of it out in a purchase, but afterwards discharges that estate of the trust, and making his will, gives generally (without taking notice of this money) his real and personal estate to A., who afterwards makes his will and gives his real estate to B. and his personal to C., the trust-money passes ^as personal estate. Case.-Henry Guy, by will dated 6th July 1709, devised to John Taylour and Afthur Lake, their executors and administrators, all his messuages, &c., in Stoke Newing- 1096 PTTLTEtfEt 1). DARLlMGlOK (EARL of) 1BEO. 0. C, 224. ton, for 99 years, to commence from'the 25th day of December next before the date of his will, if Harry Pulteney, Edmund Serjeant, and John Mid-caster, or either of them, should so long live, upon trust, to pay them certain annuities for their lives, and the overplus of the rents and profits, if any was, to remain in the hands of Taylour and Lake, for the purposes thereinafter mentioned, and as to the remainder, reversion, and inheritance of all his said messuages and hereditaments, after the said term of 99 years, he devised the same unto William, late Earl of Bath (then William Pulteney, esq.) for life, remainder to Thomas Halsey and his heirs, to preserve contingent remainders, remainder to the first and other sons of Lord Bath successively in tail male, remainder to Harry Pulteney, for life, with like remainders to trustees to preserve contingent remainders, and to his first and other sons in tail male, remainder to Daniel Pulteney (the plaintiff Frances's late father) for life, with like remainders to trustees to preserve contingent remainders, and to his first and other sons in tail male, with remainder to William Pulteney (eldest son of Sir [224]. William Pulteney and father of Lord Bath) in fee. He appointed Lord Bath, Taylour, and Lake, executors of his will, and devised to his executors, their heirs and assigns for ever, his capital messuages, &c., at Earl's Court, Middlesex, and certain freehold and copyhold estates at Muswell-hill, theretofore mortgaged to him, to the intent that they, or the survivor, his heirs, &c., should sell the same and lay out the money as thereinafter directed. And. he directed that, after his debts and legacies should be paid, all such monies or other personal estate as should remain in the hands of his executors, or be raised out of his personal estate, or by sale of his estate at Earl's Court, or the estate mortgaged to him, should be laid out by his executors, or the survivor of them, in the purchase of lands of inheritance, which should be settled upon the same persons, or such of them as should be then living, and for such estate for life and in tail male, and in such manner as he had therein before devised the interest in his messuage, &c., at Stoke Newington. The testator died 22 Feb. 1710. On the 2d of June 1711, Lord Bath, who was an acting executor, and Harry and Daniel Pulteney brought their bill in Chancery, to have the will established and the trusts carried into execution ; and on the 4th of August following, a decree was made for that purpose, and directing an account of the personal estate, and a sale of the real estates devised to be sold, and the investment of the money in purchases of lands to be settled, and ordering the money to be placed out, in the meantime, at interest. 26th August 1713, the Master made his report, and reported that Lord Bath had a balance in hand of 15,327, 2s. lid. which was to be placed out. Lord Bath continued to receive and pay money as executor, and before July 1722 he purchased with the testator's money, 17,600 South-sea stock, in the names of Taylour and himself, Lake being dead; llth July 1722, an order was made, on two petitions of Taylour and the plaintiffs in the cause, that the estate at Muswell-hill, which had not been sold, should be conveyed to the uses of the will instead of being sold, and that the South-sea stock should be transferred to the Master, who should transfer it to the three plaintiffs in the cause. The conveyance and transfers were made accordingly; the stock being increased, by an addition made by the company, to 18,700; Lord Bath, having a power of attorney from Harry and Daniel, afterwards sold out the stock, and having received 19,048,17s. &d. trust-money, and having purchased the manor [225] of Bathwich, and other estates in and near Bath, and the manor of Wrington, and other estates thereabout, for 35,000, he, by indenture dated 9th Feb. 1735, demised these premises to Harry Pulteney (Daniel being dead without issue male) for 1000 years, defeasible if he should, within three years, with the approbation of the Master, lay out the 19,048,17s. Qd. in the purchase of lands to be settled, with the Master's approbation, to the uses of the will, or should, within three years, lay out the money on securities, and should indemnify Harry, and the executors of Daniel, in respect of the sale of the stocks. By indentures of lease and release dated 3d and 4th May 1736, to which Harry Pulteney was a party, reciting this security and many of the transactions, and that the manor of Bathwich, and the rest of that estate, were worth 13,000, he in satisfaction of so much of the 19,048, 17s. 6d. conveyed the premises to the subsisting uses of the testator's will. Lord Bath had then a son, William, who was afterwards Lord Viscount Pulteney, and, by will dated 19th May 1762, reciting the conveyance in satisfaction of the 13,000, and that there remained unapplied 23,488, 2s. Id. of the personal estate, which had been ever since, and then was in his hands, and that the manor of Wrington, &c., being improved, were of greater value, he devised those estates to his son William in tail male, remainder to Harry for life, remainder to his first and other sons in tail male, the subsisting uses of the willr in satisfaction of the 1 BED. C. C. 226. PULTENEY V. DARLINGTON (EARL of) 1097 23,488, 2s. Id. On the 12th February 1763, William Lord Pulteney, died without issue male. On the 21st May 1763, William Earl of Bath made another will, which revoked the former, and without taking any notice of the 23,488, 2s. Id. gave all his manors, &c., which he was seised or possessed of, or to which he was in any wise entitled, in possession, reversion, or remainder, or which should thereafter be purchased with any trust-monies (except the reversions of the estates of the late Earl of Bradford, and some premises in the possession of Lord Egremont) to his brother Harry in fee, and gave him all the residue of his personal estate, and made him executor. On the 7th July 1764, he died without issue, and Harry Pulteney proved his will, and took possession of his estates. On the 14th August 1767, Harry Pulteney made his will, and (after disposing of some particular estates in Middlesex) gave all his other estates in Middlesex, and his estates in Somerset, Montgomery, Salop, and York (except the reversion of Lord Bradford's estates), subject to a trust term, to his cousin the [226] plaintiff, Mrs. Pulteney, for life, with remainder to her first and other sons in tail male, with remainder to her daughter Henrietta Laura, for life; remainder to her first and other sons ; remainder to the Earl of Darlington for life; remainder to his first and other sons, with remainders over ; and gave all his money, securities for money, goods, chattels, and personal estate not before disposed of, to his executors in trust, after payment of his debts, to lay out the residue in the purchase of lands, to be settled upon Lord Darlington, and his first and other sons, with remainders over, and appointed Lord Darlington, Lord Chetwynd, the plaintiff William Pulteney, and Sir Harry Bernard, executors of this will, On the 26th October 1767, he died without issue, leaving the plaintiff Frances his heir, and the heir-general of the family, she being the daughter of his cousin, Daniel Pulteney. The bill was brought to have the residue of the personal estate of the testator Henry Guy, which was left in the hands of William, Earl of Bath, laid out in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John Cookson, - Appellant; Isaac Cookson and Others, - Respondents
...the fund to be considered as personalty, would he not have expressed such intention 1 It is said, in Pulteney v. Earl of Darlington (1 Bro. C. C. 223, per Lord Thurlow, following Chichester v. Bickerstaf, 2 Vern. 295; see 7 Bro. P. C. 553) and other cases, that the slightest indication of i......
-
Harcourt v Seymour
...in his banker's; pass-books and in statements of his property: Ohichester v. Bickerstaff (2 Vern. 295), Pulteneyv, Lord Darlington (1 Bro. C. C. 223 ; and 7 Bro. P. C. 530), and Stead v. Newdigate (2 Mer. 521). I cite this last case, not for the decision in it, but to shew, from the express......
-
Blake against Bunbury
...or declaration plain : Noys v. Mordaunt, 2 Vern. 581, Streatfield v. Streatfield, For. 176, and Pulteney v. the Earl of Darlington (1 Bro. C. C. 223). The interests given here were perfectly different. There are no words to shew he meant to satisfy the annuity. By the confirmation of the se......
-
Thornton v Hawley
...that is the only exception. Lord Hardwickes reasoning in Ear lorn v. Saunders (Amb. 241) is applicable. In Pulteney v. Lord Darlington (1 Bro. C. C. 223), Lord Thurlow concurs with the opinion of Lord Commissioner Hutchins in Symons v. Mutter. Mr. Romilly, for the Defendant Bartholemew. It ......