Page images
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Oldham v. Pickering,


Osborne v. Usher,

Walker u. Walker,

39 P

Westfaling v. Westfaling, 290
Wilkie v. Holmes (note)

60 Pagett v. Hoskins,

270 Williams v. Jekyll, 88, 288, 291 Paine 0. Sidney, 77 Winchester, Ex parte,

50 Parker, Ex parte, 175 Windsor's case,

289 Patreriche v. Powlett, 35 Wrightson v. Hudson,

100 Perkinson v. Gilford,

265 Pincke v. Thornycroft, 432

Z Pitcairne v. Ogbourne,

39 Powell v. Bell, 269 Zouch o. Woolsten,

66, 71 Portsmouth (Lord) v. Vincent, 380

See also title “cases doubted, denied, or overruled, in the table of contents."

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

On Wednesday, the 5th day of May, 1802, being the first sitting day of Easter Term, the Right Honourable Lord RedesDALE sat for the first time as Lord CHANCELLOR.

[ocr errors]



May 10. EDWARD ARD ELLIS having two sons, Thomas and Ed- E. E. being

on bad terms ward (the defendant) and having been displeased with his with his eldest eldest son Thomas, and not having had any intercourse with son, bequeaths

him a trifling him for many years, by his will, dated the 22d of January, annuity, and 1773, bequeathed an annuity of 101. to Thomas during his bequeaths to life, (which, with 20l. per annum, appeared to be all he had ter of his said

« if unto live upon) and then after reciting that the said Thomas married and

“ if she does had one daughter, namely Maria Ellis (the plaintiff) he be

not marry queathed as follows:

" without the

consent of

« his trustees, " the sum of 400l. ; one moiety to be paid her upon her marriage with such consent, “the other moiety in one year after : but if said M. was then married, or should marry “ without consent, said sum to sink into his personal fortune.” M. being unmarried, is not entitled immediately either to principal or interest : not to principal, because marriage is a condition precedent, and the legacy therefore contingent until then : nor to interest, because the legacy is payable in futuro and no sufficient ground of implication that interest was intended in the mean tiine. E. E. does not appear to have put himself towards M. in loco parentis. VOL. I.




V. Ellis.

“ Now, if said Maria be unmarried, and does not marry " without the consent of my trustees or the survivor of "them, I devise and bequeath unto my said grand-daughter Maria Ellis, the sum of 400l. one moiety whereof to be “paid her upon her marriage, if such marriage should be “ with the consent of my said trustees or the survivor of “ them, and the other moiety in one year after such marriage ; “ but if said Maria be now married, or marries without

such consent, the said sum of 400l. is to sink in the personal fortune.”

The testator then devised his real estates and chattel interests (which were considerable) with the residue of his personal fortune to trustees, upon trust to pay over the rents, issues and profits, and the interests thereof to the defendant, for and during his life, with other limitations over; and he died in the year 1773, the plaintiff being then about fourteen years of age, and unmarried.

The plaintiff having been left unprovided for by her father, and dependent on her mother, who was herself in narrow circumstances, in May 1794 filed her bill against her uncle Edward and the trustees of her grand-father's will, paying an account of what was due to her for principal and interest on the foot of said legacy, and that the same should be paid to her; or, if the court should be of opinion that she was not entitled to have the principal paid, that she should be paid the interest due, and that the principal should be laid out upon security, and the interest paid to her from time to time.

This cause was first heard, on the 24th and 25th of February 1801, before Sir MICHAEL Smith, Cust. Sig. (in the absence of Lord CLARE) and stood over until this day, when it was argued by Mr. O'Grady and Mr. W. Johnston

« PreviousContinue »