Wilson v Piggott
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 July 1794 |
| Date | 08 July 1794 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 30 E.R. 668
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Bulteel v. Plummer, 1869, L. R. 8 Eq. 593.
wilson. 0. piggott. June SOth, July 8th, 1794. Rolls. [See Bulteel v. Plummer, 1869, L. R. 8 Eq. 593.] 4000 settled on marriage in trust after the decease of the husband and wife to pay among all and every the child and children other than an eldest or only son at such times and in such proportions as he, or she, or the survivor, should appoint by deed or will; for want of appointment, among such child and children, other than, &c., equally to be divided ; if but one, to that one ; payable at 21 or marriage, or as soon after, as the life interest should drop ; the shares of any dying before payable in the 4000, or so much, as should not be appointed, to go to the survivors at the same time : There were four younger children : the marriage settlement of one recited, that she was entitled to 1000 part of this fund ; one fourth of it was appointed to another on his marriage ; and to a third 1000 as her share of that portion; the fourth died above 21 before his father, who survived his wife, and died without any farther appointment; held, that 3000 was well appointed; and that the remainder vested in all equally according to the direction for want of appointment. Thomas Hill on the marriage of his daughter Sarah with Charles Piggott gave his bond to pay within six months after his decease 4000 to trustees upon trust to lay out that sum on real or parliamentary security ; and subject to the payment of 150 per annum to Elizabeth, wife of the obligor, to permit Charles Piggott to receive the proceeds for life; after his death to permit his wife to receive the proceeds for life, and after the decease of the survivor as to the capital and the proceeds from time to time to pay the same among all and every the child and children of Charles Piggott and Sarah Hill, other than an eldest or only son, at such times, and in such proportions, as he, or she, or the survivor, should appoint by deed, or will; and for want of such appointment, among such child and children, other than an eldest or only son, equally to be divided among them, if more than one ; if but one such child, then to such child ; payable to the daughters at 21 or marriage, and to the sons at 21, if Elizabeth Hill, Charles Piggott, and Sarah Hill, should be then dead; if not, then immediately after the decease of the survivor ; and if any such daughter or daughters should die under age, and unmarried, and any such son or sons under age, that the shares of him, her, or them so dying, in the 4000 or so much thereof, as should not be appointed, should go to the survivors or survivor of them at such times, as his or her original share should become payable; the proceeds in the mean time to be applied for maintenance and education of all such child or children; and in case of an only, or only [352] surviving, son to pay the said 4000 to such only son at 21 : and to apply the proceeds in the mean time for his benefit; and in case of no issue, or the death of all such before the 4000 should be payable, in trust for the survivor of Charles Pigott and Sarah Hill, his or her executors and administrators. There were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Gloucester v Osborn and Another
...607). The same principle governs the Courts in sustaining defective exe-[279]-cutions of powers of appointment; Wilson v. Piggott (2 Ves., jun., 351), Poulson v. Wellington (2 P. Wms. 533), Fortescue v. Gregor (5 Ves. 553), Alloway v. Alloway (4 Dru. and War. 380). The Courts struggle to pr......
-
Foster v Cautley
...of Simpson v. Paul (2 Eden, 34), recognized and approved by Sir W. Wood in Lee v. Head (1 K. & J. 620). The case of Wilson v. Piggott (2 Ves. jun. 351) may at first sight be thought opposed to our contention, because the result of that decision was to vest the unappointed residue in all the......
-
Laurie v Clutton
...Justinian's Institutes (book 2, tit. 12, s. 4); Cerium v. Vernon (1 Ambl. 3); Poulson v. Wellington (2 P. W. 533); Wilson v. Piggott (2 Ves. jun. 351); Bristmo\. Wanle, (2 Ves. juu. 336); Young v. Savill (2 Col. 721); Milner v. Milne.r (1 Ves. sen. 106), were cited. the master of the rolls ......
-
Sheffield v Von Donop
...the hotchpot clause would then come into operation as to those portions of the trust fund not thereby appointed : Wilson v. Piggott (2 Ves. jun. 351, 356). Mr. Lloyd, for the representatives and children of [47] August Von Donop, and Leopold Eobert Sheffield Von Donop, and his wife and chil......