Williams v Clark
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 June 1851 |
| Date | 05 June 1851 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 64 E.R. 918
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Merry v. Hill, 1869, L. R. 8 Eq. 625; Selby v. Whittaker, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 242; In re Jobson, 1889, 44 Ch. D. 159.
[472] williams v. clakk. June 5, 1851. [See Merry v. Hill, 1869, L. E. 8 Eq. 625; Selly v. Whittaker, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 242; In re Jobson, 1889, 44 Ch. D. 159.] Under a pecuniary bequest, upon trust for the testator's daughter for life, with remainder in trust for her husband for life, and after the decease of the survivor to pay and divide the trust fund to- and among the children of the daughter, if more than one equally to be divided among them, share and share alike, when and as they attained twenty-one: Held, that the children took vested interests before attaining twenty-one. Under a pecuniary bequest in trust for a niece for life, with remainder in trust for all her children equally, the shares of sons to be paid at twenty-one, and of daughters at twenty-one or marriage, with executory trusts over in case any of the children should die before they should become entitled without lawful issue: Held, that the children were entitled to the income of their shares before attaining twenty-one. Joseph Clark, by his will, dated the llth of March 1816, gave and bequeathed to his daughter, Ann Clark, the sum of £4000, and he directed that £2000, part thereof, should be paid to her by his executors thereinafter named within twelve months after his decease, out of his personal estate ; and that his executors should, within the same period after his decease, lay out and invest the sum of £2000, the remaining part thereof, in their names, or in the names of the survivors or survivor of them, at interest on mortgage of freehold premises in England or on Government security, as they in their discretion should think proper; and he then proceeded to declare the trusts hereof in the following words (that is say) : " Upon trust to pay and apply the interest, Dividends, and annual produce thereof to my said daughter, to and for her own sole and separate use and benefit for her life, and from and after her decease to pay and apply the said interest, dividends, and annual produce to any husband she may happen to marry and who may happen to survive her, for and during the term of his natural life; and from and after the decease of my said daughter, and any such husband as aforesaid, and the survivor of them, to pay and divide the said principal sum of £2000, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hume v Perpetual Trustees Executors and Agency Company of Tasmania Ltd
-
Cooney v Nicholls
...562. Smyth v. Smyth 8 Ch. Div. 561. In Kellett v. KellettENR 3 Dow P. C. 248. Hamilton v. Foot I. R. 6 Eq. 572. Williams v. ClarkeENR 4 De G. & Sm. 472. Roody v. FitzgeraldENR6 H. L. C. 61. Leach v. Jay6 Ch. Div. 496. Rocke v. RockeENR 9 Beav. 66. Saunders v. Vautier 1 Cr. & Phil. 240. Gosl......
-
Re Wrangham's Trust
...attaining twenty-one. The word " on "' was not a word of contingency. They cited Bree v. Perfect (1 Coll: 128); PFilliams v. Clark (4 De G. & Sm. 472); Lang v. Pugh (1 Y. & C. 718); Swallow v. Binn (1 K. & J. 417). [361] Mr. Baily and Mr. Swan, for William Wrangham, the testator's son, cont......