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/ssactsengr0893 and id is 1 raw text is: FLAVEL V. 'HARRISON j0:
subject to this trust, the '.apital of the fund was, directed to' fall into theresidue
which was given to the widow and executrix. The Plaintiff therefore, took the X125
per annum to be. produced by the stock,.and the widow took the remainder, subject
to the life -interest. The widow afterwards bequeathed the stock as a specific legacy
to the Defendant, and her residdary, estate to the Plaintiff, who :therefore now repre-'
sented the residue originally vested in the widow of the testator. The right for
which the Plaintiff contended was not supported either by the class of casesin which
bequests arising from stock have been held to be in the nature of annuities entitling
the legatees to have the income made good out of the residue by the purchase of a
larger sum of st6ck, or by: the class of cases in which the legatee had been held to
take no more than the dividends of the stock, whatever they might be. If the
Plain-[466]-tiff were entitled to the relief sought by the motion it must be under the
peculiar phraseology of this will, in which provision is made for the event of'the
paying off or the reduction of the stock. [His-Honour stated the terms of the will
as to the £5100, and as to the stock Which was to produce the £125 a year.; and thd
direction that the'legdtees should respectively bear the'loss or deficiency out of their
respective interests upon their becoming entitled thereto.] There was a, difficulty in
attributing a distinct' meaning'to all the words of the will. The contest on the part
of the Plaintiff was that, if' any loss or deficiency should occur in' the dividends or
interest by the payment or reduction of the stockwhen theipaities became entitled'
to it, the capital' of the stock. ought to be applied to make good the loss -of the
dividends. He should have great difficulty in arriving at the 'conclusion, upon the
form of the provision in the will, thatit was intended that the tenant for life of the,
dividends should bear no loss, and that the other parties interested in the 'stock
should bear 'the loss which the reduction has occasioned to the tenant for life. The
testator had allotted the sum of £5100, directing that each of his legatees should
take so much stock as was purchased by the.particular sums, part of the aggregate
sum to which he refers. His'mind was'apparently directed towards 'the sums of
stock in a mass, and he declared that the persons respectively who should or might
be interested therein' should rateably bear aid sustain the loss-or deficiency. The
loss or deficiency might be in the reduction of the dividend, 'or in the reduction of
the value of the stock,.or it might be in both. He 'was of opinion that could not be
a rateable distribution of the loss between the,tenant for life and the parties in
remainder, which would throw the whole loss upon the party entitled to the' stock in
remainder, and wholly release the tenant for life from it, which it was sought by this
motion to do. The motion must therefore be refused.-,
[467] FLAVEL V. HARRISON.' Feb. 22, 1853.
[S. C. 22 L. J. Ch. 866; 17 Jur. 368; 1 W. R. 213. See Leather Cloth Company v.
American Leather Cloth Comnpany, 1865, 11 H: L. C. 543; 11 E. R. 1444; Morgan
v. M'Adan, 1866, 36 L. J.' Ch. 229; Ford v. Foster, 1872, L. R. 7 Oh. 625; Cheavin
v. Walker, 1877,; 5 Ch:. D. 864.]'
The Court refused to grant an injunction at the suit 6f Flavel to restrain Harrison
from making and selling a stove'by the name of Flavel's. Patent 'Kitchener, on
the ground, first, that Flavel had falsely assumed to describe the article as being
patented; and, secondly, that he had known of the use of the name 'by Harrison
four months before he applied for the injunction. But the Court, not deciding the
question whether Flavel had or' had not a legal remedy, retained the bill, giving
him liberty to bring an action.
Flavel the elder invented a stove or kitchen-range, which was alleged to possess
peculiar advantages, and which he described as Flavel's Patent Kitchener, although,
in fact, no patent for .the invention had ever, been obtained. - The Plaintiff, Flavel
the younger, succeeded to the business and benefit of the invention, and made and
sold the article in question by the same name. The kitchen-range was exhibited by
the Plaintiff at the Exhibition of 1851, amongst the articles of ironmongery; his
10 HARE,ik6;'
1010](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0893&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)