Gambar halaman
[ocr errors]

legacies not. Webster v. Hale, 8 Ves. 410; Benson v. Maude, 6 when no time for Mad. 15. payment is

The amount allowed is 4 per cent., and it appears to be appointed.

now settled that that amount only will be allowed, though the personalty may be in a country where the current rate of interest is higher. Cons. Orders XLII., r. 11; Bourke v. Ricketts, 10 Ves. 330; Hamilton v. Dallas, 38 L. T. N. S. 215.

A direction that no legacy shall be payable until six months after the testator's death will not alter the general

rule. Jauncey v. A.-G., 10 W. R. 129; 3 Giff. 308. Direction Where there is a clear gift of a legacy, a direction to to pay out of fund pay it out of a particular fund when received will not alter when

the rule that the legatee is entitled to interest from the received.

end of a year after the testator's death. Wood v. Penoyre, 13 Ves. 326; see Kirkpatrick v. Bedford, 4 App. C. 96.

But if the trust to pay legacies only arises after the fund is got in, interest is not payable till then. Lord v. Lord, 2 Ch. 782.

A direction to apply a sum for building a church when it is wanted, without interest in the meantime, will not deprive the legacy of interest if payment is delayed by

litigation. Fisher v. Brierley, 30 B. 268. Effect of The rule as to interest is not altered by the fact that charge on

the legacies are charged upon personalty and a reversionary sionary

interest in realty, and if the personalty is insufficient, the interest.

legacies nevertheless bear interest from a year after the death. Freeman v. Simpson, 6 Sim. 75; Earl of Milltown v. French, 4 Cl. & F. 276; 10 Bl. N. S. 1.

But this is not the case where the fund out of which the legacy is primarily payable is wholly reversionary. Earl

v. Bellingham, 24 B. 448. Interest On the other hand, interest is payable from the testator's payable

death: death.


1. Where the testator is the father or in loco Testator in

a rever

from the


out of the


to the legatee, provided the latter is an infant. Wilson v. loco pa

rentis to an Maddison, 2 Y. & C. C. 372.

infant. If the infant is in ventre at the testator's death, interest runs only from his birth. Rawlins v. Rawlins, 2 Cox, 425.

2. Where the legatee, though a stranger, is an infant, Mainteand maintenance is given out of the legacy. Newman v. directed Bateson, 3 Sw. 689.

legacy. 3. Where the legacy is in satisfaction of a debt of the Legacy in

satisfactestator. Clarke v. Sewell, 3 Atk. 99.

tion of a A legacy in satisfaction of the debts of another person will not prima facie carry interest till the expiration of a year from the testator's death. Askew v. Thompson, 4 K. & J. 620.

But if certain property is to be applied among such persons as have “any just or indisputable demand” upon a third person, interest will be payable on the debts as far as the fund will go. Aston v. Gregory, 6 Ves. 151.

B. A legacy payable at a future day, whether vested or When a not, carries interest only from the time fixed for its pay- payment is ment. Lloyd v. Williams, 2 Atk. 108; Heath v. Perry,

fixed in

terest runs 3 Atk. 101; Festing v. Allen, 5 Ha. 575; Gotch v. Foster, from then. 5 Eq. 311; Lord v. Lord, L. R. 2 Ch. 782; Holmes v. Crispe, 18 L. J. Ch. 439.

If the period arrives in the testator's lifetime interest runs from his death. Coventry v. Higgins, 14 Sim. 30; Pickwick v. Gibbes, 1 B. 271.

The personal representatives of a legatee entitled to a vested legacy stand in no better position than the legatee; therefore, where a time for payment is fixed and the legatee would not have been entitled to interest in the meantime, the legacy is not payable to the personal representatives till the time when it would have been payable to the legatee. Chester v. Painter, 2 P. Wms. 336; Roden v. Smith, Amb. 588; Maher v. Maher, 1 L. R. Ir. 22.

time of

in loco

Excep- But though a period is appointed for payment, or the tions.

legacy is contingent, interest runs from the death :Testator 1. Where the legatee is an infant child of the testator, parentis to or an infant to whom the testator has placed himself in an infant. loco parentis, and the will provides no other maintenance,

whether the legacy be vested or contingent. Harvey v. Harvey, 2 P. W. 21; Incledon v. Northcote, 3 Atk. 432, 438; Donovan v. Needham, 9 B. 164; May v. Potter, 25

W. R. 507; see Mole v. Mole, 1 Dick. 310. Provision If the testator has made a provision for the maintenance for main. tenance, of his infant children, interest only runs from the time when

the legacy is payable. Hearle v. Greenbank, 3 Atk. 697, 716; Wynch v. Wynch, 1 Cox, 433 ; see In re George, 5 Ch. D. 837.

Where there is provision for maintenance during a portion of the minority of the legatee, interest on the legacy will be allowed during the rest. Chambers v. Goldwin, 11 Ves. 1; Martin v. Martin, L. R. 1 Eq. 369; see Cusack v. Jellicoe, 22 W. R. 344.

2. If the infant legatee is a stranger, but the income is given for maintenance, interest runs from the death. In re Richards, 8 Eq. 119; Chidgey v. Whitby, 41 L. J. Ch.

699. General in- 3. Upon similar grounds, where the legatees are strangers, tention to provide

if a general intention is expressed of providing for their maintenance out of their legacies, interest runs from the death. Pett v. Fellows, 1 Sw. 561, note; Lambert v. Parker, Coop. t. Eldon, 143; Leslie v. Leslie, Ll. & G. t. Sug. 1.

The fact that maintenance is given in one particular event which does not happen is not enough. Festing v.

Allen, 5 Ha, 575. Lord Cran- Under Lord Cranworth's Act, 23 & 24 Vict. c. 145, sec. worth's Act.

26, which applies to wills executed or confirmed after the 28th August, 1860, the whole or any part of the income of


any legacy, to the income and capital of which an infant is contingently entitled, may be paid towards his maintenance in all cases.

That Act enables the income of a legacy to be applied for maintenance, though the gift both of income and capital is contingent, provided the legatee will be entitled to income and capital if the legacy becomes vested. In re Cotton, 1 Ch. D. 232; see In re Breed's Will, 1 Ch. D. 226.

It does not apply to a case where the legatee would not be entitled to the intermediate income in the event of the legacy becoming vested. In re George, 5 Ch. D. 837. 4. Where a fund is directed to be at once set apart from Severed

fund. the rest of the testator's estate, it carries the income from the testator's death. Boddy v. Dawes, 1 Kee. 362; Dundas v. Wolfe Murray, 1 H. & M. 425; Johnson v. O'Neill, 3 L. R. Ir. 476.

A fund which has been severed for the benefit of a tenant for life and remainderman carries the interest accruing between the death of the tenant for life and the vesting in the remainderman. Kidman v. Kidman, 40 L. J. Ch. 359.

To entitle the legatees of a severed fund to interest before vesting the severance must be necessary from causes connected with the legacy itself, and not, for instance, because the residue has become immediately payable. Festing v. Allen, 5 Ha. 578.

Where there is a future gift of principal“ with interest,” Future interest is calculated from the end of a year after the principal

gift of testator's death till the time of payment. Knight v.

interest. Knight, 2 S. & St. 490.

Where & vested legacy is given to an infant and no time Vested of payment is fixed and the legacy is given over upon a divested.

legacy contingency, the infant or his representatives are entitled to the interest which has accrued due till the contingency



bappens. Taylor v. Johnson, 2 P. W. 504; Barber v. Barber, 3 M. & Cr. 688; Mills v. Robarts, 1 R. & M. 555.

The person taking a vested interest under the gift over, no condition as to payment being annexed to his gift, is entitled to interest from the time when the gift over takes effect, or from a year after the testator's death, whichever period is latest. Laundy v. Williams, 2 P. W. 481.


Irvin v.

From what An annuity begins to run from the death of the testator; time annuities the first payment is therefore due at the end of a year unare pay.

less the annuity is directed to be paid monthly or quarterly, able.

in which case instalments are payable at the end of the first month or quarter. Houghton v. Franklin, 1 S. & St. 390.

If payment on stated quarterly days is directed a proportional part is payable on the first quarterly day. Williams v. Wilson, 5 N. R. 266.

If the first payment of an annuity payable quarterly is directed to be made at the end of eighteen months, a quarter's instalment is payable at that time. Ironmonger, 2 R. & M. 531.

As to the postponement of an annuity till debts and legacies are paid, see Astley v. Earl of Essex, 6 Ch. 898;

Rawson v. M'Causland, I. R. 7 Eq. 284; 22 W. R. 145. Particular It does not appear to be quite settled when interest is legacy for life with payable on a gift of a particular legacy, not residuary, to remainder.

one for life with remainder over; see Gibson v. Bott, 7 Ves. 89, where Lord Eldon lays down that interest is not

payable till the end of the second year. Arrears of Arrears of an annuity will not as a rule carry interest. an annuity do not

Batten v. Earnley, 2 P. Wms. 163; Anderson v. Dwyer, 1 Sch. & Lef. 301; Martin v. Blake, 3 Dr. & War. 125; Taylor v. Taylor, 8 Ha. 120; Torre v. Broune, 5 H. L. 555; Wheateley v. Davies, 24 W. R. 818.

carry interest.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »