Young v Lord Waterpark
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 November 1842 |
| Date | 18 November 1842 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 60 E.R. 77
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 11 L. J. Ch. 367; 6 Jur. 656. See Bulteel v. Plummer, 1869, L. R. 8 Eq. 593; L. R. 6 Ch. 164. Distinguished, Balfour v. Cooper, 1883, 23 Ch. D. 472.
Foreign Contract. Sterling or Currency. Interest. Deed. Construction. Appointment. Power. Statute of Limitations, 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, s. 42.
[199] young v. lord watekpark. Nov. 18, 1842. [S. C. 11 L. J. Ch. 367 ; 6 Jur. 656. See Sulteel v. Plummer, 1869, L. R. 8 Eq. 593; L. R. 6 Ch. 164. Distinguished, Balfour v. Cooper, 1883, 23 Ch. D. 472.J Foreign Contract. Sterling or Currency. Interest. Deed. Construction. Appointment. Power. Statute of Limitations, 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, s. 42. A settlement was made in Ireland of estates, some of which were situate there and the rest in England, by which the estates were limited to trustees for a term of years, for raising at a future time 10,000 for portions; and interest at 5 per cent, was to be raised out of the rents for the children's maintenance in the meantime; but the settlement was silent as to the rate of interest on the portions after they had become payable. Held, that the 10,000 must be raised in Irish currency; bnt not with Irish interest (6 per eent.), but 4 per cent, according to the usual course of the Court. Under a marriage settlement the husband and wife, having power to appoint 10,000 amongat all their younger children, but in such shares as they should think fit, (1) See Hoare v. Hornby, 2 Youn. & Coll. N. C. 121. 78 YOUNG V. LORD WATERPARK is SIM. m appointed the, whole, in different sums and at different times, to four of the younger children, to the exclusion of the rest. Held, that the three first appointments were good, and only the last void. Under a marriage settlement a term was vested in trustees for raising 10,000 for the yoanger children of the marriage, and, subject thereto, the estates were limited to the first and other sons in tail male. Much more than 20 years after the 10,000 ought to have been raised and paid, the younger children filed a bill to have that sum raised. Held, that the relation of trustee and cestui que trust existed between the parties; and, therefore, the Statute of Limitations, which enacts that money to be raised out of land shall not be recoverable but within twenty years next after a right to receive the same shall have accrued to some person capable of giving a receipt for the same, did not apply. In August 1757 a settlement was made on the marriage of Henry Cavendish, Esq., afterwards Sir Henry Cavendish, Bart., with Sarah...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Between Robert Knight since deceased and His Executors by amendment, and Richard Tomkinson, Plaintiffs; and George Bowyer, John Thomas Groves and Emma, his Wife, Charles Pugh, The Rev George Frazer Mathews and Ann Martha, his Wife, late Ann Martha Bridger, Edward Kynaston Bridger, Wilson Lomer, Charles Bridger, Charles King, Alexander Donovan, Samuel Sturgis, William Whitfield, Harriett Huntingford (since dismissed), John Samuel Bowles, George Warner, The Rev. John Tunnard, Clerk, John Taylor, John Matthews, and Sir George Bowyer, Baronet, Defedants
...the estate had all along been in possession of the trustees, who had never and could not repudiate the trust; Young v. Lord Waterpark (13 Sim. 199); Stone v. Godfrey (5 De G. M. & G. 76); and that the possession and application of the.rents, so far as possible, had been in accordance with t......
-
Bright v Larcher
...& J. 132); Farran v. Beresford (10 Clark & Fin. 319); Cox v. Dolman (2 De Gex, M. & G. 592); Young v. Lord JVaterpark (1 Mac. & G. 640; 13 Simons, 199); 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, s. 40, were cited. Mr. Selwyn, in reply. June 10. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly], I am of opinion that t......
-
Lewis v Duncombe
...on the real estate of the Defendant in the action ; but this does not affect the principle. On the other hand, Young v. Lard fVaterpark (13 Sim. 199); Cox v. Doleman (2 De G. M. & G. 592), and Snow v. Booth (2 Kay & John. 132), determine that where the estate is vested in trustees, in trust......
-
The Estate of Michael Murphy, Charles H. James, and Michael Hughes, Assignees of Edward Bermingham, an Insolvent, Deceased, or of The Rev. John Butler, Owners; Marcella Livesay, Petitioner
...329. Bannatyne v. Barrington 9 Ir. Ch. R. 406. Jones v. Harris 9 Ves. 486. Hunter v. Nockolds 1 M'N. & G. 640. Young v. Lord WaterparkENR 13 Sim. 199. Snow v. BoothENR 2 K. & J. 132; S. C. on Appeal, 8 De G. M'N. & G. 69. Gyles v. Gyles 9 Ir. Ch. R. 135. Drought v. Jones 2 Ir. Eq. R. 303. W......