HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0718 and id is 1 raw text is: LONGDON V. SIMSON
LONGDON V. SIMSON. Rolls. March 14th, 1806i
[See Ellis v. Maxwell, 1841, 3 Beav. 596 ; Elborne v. Good, 1844, 14 Sim. 172.]
Trust by Will for accumulation beyond the Statute 39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 98, is void
only for the excess. Therefore, where directed until the age of 21 of the legatee,
not then born, it is good for 21 years. Legacy to A. for life ; then to her children
for maintenance, and to be equally divided among them on their arriving at 21;
followed by a legacy to B. on the same conditions, on his attaining the age of 21.
The legacy to B. construed in the same manner as the other : viz. for life only
&c.
William Williams, by his Will, dated the 30th of May 1801, gave and bequeathed
the residue of his estate in the following words
To my niece Mary Ann Williams the sum of £5000 during life; after which to
her children for their education and maintenance, and to be equally divided among
them on their arriving at the age of 21 years. I give to my nephew Robert Williams
the sum of £3000 on the same conditions on his attaining the age of 21 years. I
also direct, that the shares I have in the Monmouth, Shrewsbury, Wisley, and
Essington and Elsemere Canals, also in the Liverpool Waterworks, shall be paid
up : and the profits arising from them shall be invested one-half in the funds of
[296] this country, and the other in the funds of the United States of America :
the interest arising to be applied to the education of the children of the said Mary
Ann Williams and Robert Williams in equal shares; and on their attaining the
age of 21 years the whole to be sold and divided equally among them. Should
the said Mary Ann Williams and Robert Williams die without issue, I give the
above shares on the same conditions unto the children of my friends George Simson
of St. Paul's church-yard, and Jacob Kirkup of Walworth. The remainder and
residue of my estate I give unto my niece Mary Ann Williams, and Robert Williams
my nephew, to be divided equally between them share and share alike : my nephew
not to have possession till he arrives at the age of 21 years ; and he appointed
Simson and Kirkup his executors.
The testator died in 1802 ; leaving Robert Williams and Mary Ann Williams,
who married John Longdon, his next of kin. The issue of that marriage was one
child ; who died in 1804, a month old. Robert Williams was not married.
The Bill was filed by Longdon and his wife, and the trustees in their marriage
settlement, which comprised her interests under the Will ; Robert Williams being
one of those trustees; praying an account under the Will, and payment to the
trustees, and also to Robert Williams in his own right ; and that his interest in the
legacy of £3000, and also the interests in the profits of the canal shares may be
ascertained.
Mr. Richards, and Mr. Shadwell, jun., for the Plaintiffs. [297] The accumulation,
directed by this Will, goes farther than the late Act of Parliament allows. (Stat. 39 &
40 Geo. III. c. 98 ; in consequence of the decision in Thellusson v. Woodford. 4 Ves.
227 ; see the note, 343.) It must last according to the Will during 21 years from
the birth of the child. There is no child now born; and there may be many. In
Griffiths v. Vere (9 Ves. 127) the trust for accumulation was not considered void
throughout, merely as it could not be carried to the extent intended. In that case
the person, during whose life the accumulation was directed, was actually in existence.
In this case there is no child now existing: a child may be born: may live a few
years, and then die; and then another may be born.
The second question is upon the construction of the legacy to Robert Williams,
whether he is entitled to it absolutely, or only in the same manner as Mary Ann
Williams.
The Solicitor General [Romilly], for the Defendants. Though the circum-
stances of the case cited are different, the construction, that was put upon the Act
of Parliament, is as applicable to this case as to that. The Act was intended only
to guard against the evil of accumulation beyond the period of 21 years. It was
argued in that case, that the accumulation might extend beyond that period;
and upon very technical arguments ; as, that a life was a larger interest than 21
years. The true construction of the Act was adopted in that case.
12 VES. JUN. 296.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0718&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)