References: (1836) 3 C & Finelly 14
Coram: Lord Lyndhurs
Ratio: WL, brother of JL, gave property to JL charged with a legacy of £5,000 to JL’s daughter, Susan, then unmarried. JL by his will later gave her £10,000 on trust for life with remainder to her children and provided that the £10,000 was to be additional to the gift to Susan (the £5,000) provided by his brother’s will. Susan then married and JL advanced £15,000 to her husband as a marriage portion. The marriage articles provided that such £15,000 was to be in satisfaction of what would come to her (£5,000) under WL’s will. JL then died. The question arose whether the £15,000 advanced by JL to Susan’s husband, Mr Wharton, adeemed only the £5,000 coming under WL’s will or also the £10,000 provided for under JL’s will. The marriage articles provided that the £5,000 was to be thereby adeemed, and it was argued, under the ‘expressly unius’ construction rule, that JL could not have intended the £10,000 provided by his will to be adeemed. JL’s will gave the £10,000 in trust for Susan for life and after her death for her children (by whatever husband) whereas under the marriage articles the money was given to her husband as a marriage portion in consideration of which her husband was to secure to her, during their joint lives, £500 p.a. for pin money, a jointure of £1200 p.a. and portions for the daughters and younger sons of their marriage. Tt was argued that the limitation under JL’s will were widely different from those applicable under the marriage settlement.
Held: As to the difference ‘. . . I apprehend that this will not prevent the application of the principle of ademption and that the authorities are all the other way’ and ‘the circumstance of the limitations being different does not at all affect the question’. The presumption against double portions applied and that the gift of £10,000 by JL’s will had been adeemed.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – In Re the Estate of Marjorie Langdon Cameron (Deceased); Peter David Phillips v Donald Cameron and Others ChD (Gazette 21-Apr-99, Times 02-Apr-99, Gazette 28-Apr-99)
One of the testatrix’s children was thought to be profligate, and had failed to maintain his own son. Acting under an enduring power of attorney, the testatrix’s attorneys made a substantial gift in establishing an educational trust for that son’s . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 19 February 2017
Ref: 194491
The post Earl of Durham v Wharton: HL 1836 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.