Wombwell v Hanrott
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 July 1851 |
| Date | 11 July 1851 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 241
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 20 L. J. Ch. 581.
[143] wombwell v. hanrott. July 11, 1851. [S.C. 20 L. J. Ch. 581.] An appointment to one of a class of a part of a fund as " her part, share, and proportion," does not prevent her participating in the unappointed fund, limited to the class equally in default of appointment. A mother had a power of appointing a reversionary fund to her daughters. A daughter, who was under age, being about to marry, the mother appointed that a moiety of the fund should, on the marriage, become the portion of the daughter, and be vested in her or her intended husband in her right, and to be paid to the husband, his executors, administrators, or assigns, on the death of the tenant for life. Held, although the husband was not an object of the power and the fund was reversionary and the daughter an infant, that there was a valid appointment. A testator gave certain property, consisting of 21,792 consols, after the death of his daughter Mrs. Orby Hunter and her husband, unto her children, " in such parts, shares, and proportions" as she, by any writing with or without power of revocation under her hand and seal, executed in the presence of two or more credible witnesses, "should appoint, and, in default of such appointment, to pay the same unto such children, share and share alike." 242 WOMBWELL V. HANROTT 14 BEAV. 144. [144] By deed-poll, duly executed by Mrs. Orby Hunter, dated the 21st of June 1824, after reciting that she had two daughters-viz., Charlotte, who was of age, and Georgians, who was a minor, and that there was no probability of her having any future issue, and that a marriage was intended between Mr. George Wombwell and Georgians, "and that in order to her preferment and advancement in marriage," Mrs. Orby Hunter was desirous to appoint one full moiety or equal half part of the fund " unto and in favour of Georgiana M. Orby Hunter, as and for her part, share and proportion of the same sum of 21,792 consols, to the end and intent that such moiety or half part might become and be an interest vested in her, or in George Wombwell, her intended husband, in her right, immediately upon the solemnization of the said intended marriage "-it was witnessed, that Mrs. Hunter did appoint, that one moiety of the fund, " should, from and immediately after the solemnization of the said marriage, be and become, and be considered, as the part, share, and proportion of her the said Georgiana M. Orby Hunter, of and in the same sum of 21,792 consols, and should, from thenceforth, become and be and should be considered, deemed, and taken, as an interest'vested in her the said Georgiana Mary Orby Hunter, or in the sairl George Wombwell in her right, to the end and intent that such moiety or half part should and might, with all convenient speed after the decease of the survivor of them the said Thomas Orby Hunter and Frances his wife, be transferred, assigned, and made over unto the said George Wombwell...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v Cautley
...may be excluded by implication, Hughes v. Evans (13 Sim. 496). In the cases of Johnson v. Johnson (4 Beav. 318) and Wombwell v. Hanrott (14 Beav. 143), there was an attempt to exclude certain persons without specifically carrying out that intention by giving it over to someone else. Mr. Mal......
-
Pomfret v Perring
...all that had been done in favour of Mrs. Butler and her family ; 1 Sugden on Powers (pp. 374, 433 (6th edit.)); Wmibwell v. Hanrott (14 Beav. 143); Degg v. Earl o/Maceksfleld (Select Ca. 44); Deg v. Leg (2 P. Wms. 412). Mr, Boupell, for the widow and legal personal repre-[623]-sentatives of......
-
Armstrong v Lynn
...86. Gaskin v. RogersELR L. R. 2 Eq. 291. Cooper v. Cooper L. R. 6Ch. App. 15. Cooper v. CooperELR L. R. 7 H. L. 54. Wombwell v. HanrottENR 14 Beav. 143. Wilson v. Piggott 2 Ves. Jun. 351. Simpson v. PaulENR 2 Cox, 34. Clune v. Apjohn 17 Ir. Ch. R. 25. Lee v. HeadENR 1 K. & J. 620. Ware v. L......
-
Walmsley v Vaughan
...the unappointed 6000, Wilson v. Piggatt (2 Ves. J. 351; Sug. Pow. II., 217, 7th ed.), Simpson v. Paul (2 Eden, 34), Wambwell v. Hanrott (14 Beav. 143). In Foster v. Cceutley (6 De G. M. & G-. 55) there were special words which took the case out of the general rule, but none such are found h......