[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Colclough and Others v. Gaven and Others [1815] UKHL 3_Dow_267 (21 April 1815) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1815/3_Dow_267.html Cite as: [1815] UKHL 3_Dow_267 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 267↓
(1815) 3 Dow 267
REPORTS OF APPEAL CASES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, During the Session, 1814—15. 55 Geo. III.
IRELAND.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CHANCERY.
No. 18
WILL. — LEGACY.
Under the words in a will, “to pay to each of my said (younger) children (three daughters) as and for their respective portions, a sum equal to one fourth of what shall remain to my said (eldest) son William—payable to my said daughters respectively, at her or their respective ages of twenty-one, or marriage, &c.” held that all the daughters were only entitled to a sum equal to a fourth of what remained to the eldest son, or each of them to one seventh, (such appearing to be the testator's intention), and that the time of the testator's death was that at which the amount of his property, and the proportions of the shares were to be computed and estimated.
Will of Luke Gaven, Jan. 11, 1790.
Luke gaven, Esq. being possessed of personal property to the amount of about 5000 l. and seized of Freehold Estates in the Counties of Meath, Sligo, &c. of the value of about 1700 l. a year, on January 11, 1790, made his will, which was executed and attested, so as to pass real estates; and thereby, after directing payment of his just debts and funeral expences, he devised and bequeathed all his messuages, lands, tenements, hereditaments, and all the personal estates of which he should die possessed, to the
Page: 268↓
Page: 269↓
Page: 270↓
Bill filed, May 1803.
Decree, July 12, 1804.
The testator died on May 12, 1790, without having altered or revoked his will, leaving his widow and the four children named in the will, which was proved by the executor Butler, who took upon himself the management, and misapplied or embezzled a great part of the property, and died insolvent. The other executors were then prevailed upon to interfere, and act in the trusts of the will. Mary Gaven, one of the daughters of the testator, intermarried in 1802, with the Rev. Dudley Colclongh; and on May 27, 1803, Colclough and his wife filed a bill in the Irish Chancery against William Gaven, the testator's son, and other proper parties, praying that the trusts of the will might be carried into execution, and the property of the plaintiff Colclough and his wife might be ascertained and paid. Answers having been put in, and the parties having submitted their rights under the will to the judgment of the Court, the cause was heard on bill and answer, on July 12, 1804, before the then Master of the Rolls, who decreed that the trusts of the will should be carried into execution, and that an account should be taken among other things of the whole amount of the value of the testator's estates at the time of his death, after deducting debts, &c.; and that Colclough and his wife were entitled to one fourth of such value, with interest from the time of the wife's attaining the age of twenty-one years.
Re-hearing.
Decree, March 8, 1810.
After various proceedings under this decree, and
Page: 271↓
Page: 272↓
Leach and Roupell (for the Appellants) contended that according to the intent of the testator, as it was to be collected from the whole will, the proportion and shares were to be computed according to the amount of the property, not as it stood at the time of the testator's death, but as it stood at the time of distribution.
Romilly and Bell (for the Respondents) asked what was the time of distribution? The distribution was only to take place as each became entitled, and according to that construction they would take in different proportions; and as to the time of vesting and distribution, Mr. Bell cited Roebuck v. Dean, 4 Bro. Ch. Ca. 403. 2 Ves. 265.
Leach. The time is arbitrary, and there is no rule but the testator's intention.
Page: 273↓
Judgment.
Appeal dismissed, and decree affirmed.
Solicitors: Agent for Appellants, Deare.
Agents for Respondents, Shawe, Le Blanc, and Shawe.