128

Analytical Digest of Cases: Courts of Equity.

survived the testator, and died leaving six chil-daughter for her life, and after her decease to dren, five of whom had attained 21 in her lifetime.

Held, that the testator's residuary legatee was excluded from claiming any portion of the dividends of the fund. Stone v. Harrison, 2 Coll. 715.

Cases cited in the judgment: Taylor v. Johnson, 2 P. W. 504; Ellison v. Airey, 1 Ves., sen. 111; Shepherd v. Ingram, Ambl. 448; Mills v. Norris, 5 Ves. 335; Whitbread v. Lord St. John, 10 Ves. 152; Gilbert v. Boorman, 11 Ves. 238; Davidson v. Dallas, 14 Ves. 576; Defflis v. Goldschmidt, 19 Ves. 566.

SPECIALTY DEBTS.

Assets.-Devisee and legatee.-Specific legacies and devised real estates must contribute rateably to the payment of specialty debts. Gervis v. Gervis, 14 Sim. 654; Cornewall v. Cornewall, 12 Sim. 128, overruled.

Cases cited in the judgment: Long v. Short, 1 P. W. 403; Silk v. Pryme, 1 Dick. 384; 1 Bro. C. C, 138, n.

"SURVIVING."

appropriate the interest for the use of any her child or children, until they reached the age of 21 years, when the 2,000l. was to be paid to the survivor or survivors of the said children of his said daughter. The daughter had two children who attained 21, but only one of them survived her.

Held, that that child became entitled on her death to the whole of the trust funds in which she had a life interest. Turing v. Turing, 15 Sim. 139.

See Limitations, I.

TENANT FOR LIFE.

- Testator be

Long Annuities. Residue. queathed all his personal estate to trustees, and directed them to convert it into money and to pay the interest to certain persons for their lives, then to invest the principal in the purchase of lands, it being also understood that where his money or personal estate might be lying on undoubted real or personal security, such securities might be only renewed in the names of the trustees. The testaA married woman having power to dispose tor's personal estate consisted in part of Long of 1,500l. by her will, gave the interest of it to Annuities. Held, that the cestuis que trust for her husband for his life, and directed that after life of the personalty were not entitled to rehis decease the principal should be divided ceive the Long Annuities, but that they must equally between the five daughters of her sis- be converted into Consols. Preston v. Melville, ter B., and if any of them should die during her 15 Sim. 35. husband's lifetime, leaving issue, that the respective issue of such deceased's daughters should have equally divided among them their mother's share, but in case any of them should die during her husband's lifetime without lawful issue, that the 1,500l. should be divided share and share alike among the surviving said daugh

1. Bequest to one for life, with remainder over to two others, with a clause of survivorship, "if one or the other of the latter should die:" Held, that the survivorship had reference to the death of the tenant for life, and not to that of the testator; and one of the remainder-men having survived the testator, but pre-deceased the tenant for life, the survivor, was held entitled to his share by survivorship. Whitton v. Field, 9 Beav. 36s.

2. Testator bequeathed 50,000l. to trustees, in trust for his wife for life, and after her death, he gave one-fifth of that sum to the same trustees in trust to invest it and pay the interest to his daughter for her life, and upon her demise to appropriate the interest for the use of any her child or children, until they reached the age of 21 years, and then the principal to be paid to the survivor or survivors of the children of his said daughter, share and share alike. The testator also gave 2,000l. to the same trustees, in trust to invest it and to pay the interest to his

TENANTS IN COMMON.

Testator devised his copyhold and leasehold estates in trust for his son for life, and after his decease in trust to assign and surrender the same unto and among the person or persons who, at the son's death, would be entitled to his personal estate in case he should die intestate. The son died, leaving a widow and four children.

Held, that they took the estates in equal fifth parts as tenants in common. Richardson v. Richardson. 14 Sim. 526.

TRUST.

See Alien; Precatory Trust.

TRUSTEES, NEW.

Testator devised his real estates to A., B., C., D., and their heirs, on certain trusts, which required the legal estate to be vested in them, and gave a power of sale to them or the survivor or survivors of them, or the heirs of the survivor, and declared that their or his receipts or receipt should be a good discharge to the purchaser, and if any of them should die or decline to act, that it should be lawful and he thereby willed and directed that the survivors of them should immediately, or within two months afterwards, by any deed nominate some fit person to be a trustee in his place. D. died; and A. and B. by one deed, and C. by another, (both of which were executed more than two lunar months, but less than two calendar months after D.'s death,) nominated a new trustee, but did not convey the legal estate to him. A., B., C., and the new trustee agreed to sell the estates to M. who objected to complete his purchase, first because the appointment of the new trustee had not been made within two

Analytical Digest of Cases: Courts of Equity.-Chancery Sittings.

lunar months. 2ndly, because it had not been made by one single deed, and lastly, because the power of sale was suspended during the vacancy in the trust.

129

effect, were entitled. Where after specific limitations a testator gave his property to his next of kin, much weight is not to be attached to that which is supposed to be the testator's intention The court overruled the objections, but held, in favour of or against particular persons as his that the new trustee had not been duly ap- next of kin; for infinite variations may take pointed, because no conveyance had been ex-place in that class between his will and his ecuted to him, notwithstanding which, that A., B., and C. could make a good title, and give an effectual discharge for the purchase money. The court held also, that the new trustee, though not duly appointed, might join with A., B., and C. in a suit for a specific performance, Warburton v. Sandys, 14 Sim. 622.

TRUSTEES, SCOTCH.

death. It is probable that a testator in such
cases means to provide for particular persons,
and then adds, that if they fail, then the law
Seifferth v. Badham, 9
may take its course.
Beav. 370.

Cases cited in the judgment: Briden v. Hewlett,
2 Myl. & K. 90; Butler v. Bushnell, 3 Myl.
& K. 232; Holloway v. Holloway, 5 Ves. 399;
Urquhart v. Urquhart, 13 Sim. 627.

UNITARIANS, BEQUEST TO.

A bequest for the assistance of Unitarian congregations, held to be valid, and the trust directed to be carried into execution. Shrewsbury v. Hornby, 5 Hare, 406.

VESTED BEQUEST.

Jurisdictiou. A Scotchman, by a testamentary instrument in the Scotch form, bequeathed all his personal estate to trustees, in trust to pay legacies and annuities, and the income of the surplus to A. for A.'s life, and on A.'s death to invest the capital in the purchase of lands in Scotland. The trustees named in the will having disclaimed, the Court of Session Gift over- -A testator gave his real and perappointed new trustees, who, as well as A. and sonal estate, after paying four annuities, to one several of the legatees and annuitants, were re- for life, and after his death he directed his persident in Scotland. 4. administered to the sonal and the produce of his real estate to be testator's estate in England, and filed a bill in divided amongst the children of A. living at Chancery against the trustees for the usual ac- the testator's death, when the youngest atcounts of the testator's estate, possessed by tained 21, if the annuitants should be then them, and to have the residue ascertained and dead; but if not. then his trustees were either secured. The trustees filed a cross bill for an to invest it, and pay and apply the residue of account of the testator's estate in England the income to the maintenance, &c. of the chilpossessed by A., and to have the residue ascer- dren, according to their discretion, or accumutained and paid over to them upon the trusts late; such accumulations to be paid after the of the will. The court refused to relinquish its death of the surviving annuitants, with the orijurisdiction over the fund in A.'s hands, and directed it to be paid into court, and to be in-ginal shares. There was a gift over in the event vested in consols, and the dividends to be paid to A. for life. Preston v. Melville, 15 Sim. 35.

ULTIMATE LIMITATION.

Next of kin.-Upon an ultimate limitation to testator's next of kin Held, that the next of kin at the testator's death, and not those at the time when such ultimate limitation took

of the death of any child who should become entitled to a distributive share before his share became "payable." One of the children predeceased an annuitant. Held, nevertheless, that the bequest was vested, and that the gift over did not take effect. Butterworth v. Harvey, 9 Beav. 130.

See "or" construed "and."