The Cornishman, Thursday, November 29, 1894
The Tehidy Estates
The Late Mr. Basset’s Will
In the Chancery division, on Thursday, before M. Justice Stirling, the adjourned summons was heard in the case of Basset v. St. Levan. The question was one of construction arising on the will of Mr. Gustavus Lambert Basset.
Mr. Basset made his will on March 6th, 1888, and died in the following July. At the time of his death he was tenant for life under a settlement of March 3rd, 1854, of the Basset estates at Camborne in Cornwall. That settlement contained certain limitations, amongst them being a limitation of the estate to Gustavus Lambert Basset for life with remainder to the first and other sons in tail.
The settlement contained a power of sale and a direction that the proceeds of any such sale should be invested in the purchase of land either in Cornwall or elsewhere. There was also created under the settlement a term of 99 years in trustees who, during the minority of any tenant in tail, had power to enter and manage, and after making certain provisions out of the rents, were under the obligation of investing the surplus rents in the purchase of land.
At the time of Mr. Gustavus Lambert Basset’s death there were considerable funds, which under the trusts of the settlement were liable to be laid out in the purchase of land, the amount of money being now £140,000. The testator left surviving him an only son, the plaintiff, Arthur Francis Basset, who had attained the age of 21, and during his minority considerable accumulations were made of the rents of the real estate comprised in the settlement.
The testator, by his will, stated that he was desirous that the Tehidy manor and estates should be sold in the event of failure of his own issue, and he directed his son, Arthur Francis, “within six months of my death, or on this attaining the age of twenty-one years, whichever shall first happen, to effectually disentail the said manor, estate, and all other estates and hereditaments,” subject to the limitations in the settlement of March 3rd, 1854, and to execute within the time aforesaid an effectual resettlement thereof to the use of Arthur Francis Basset during life with remainder to his first and other sons in tail male.
The questions left for the determination of the Court was what property was to be comprised in the disentailing deed and resettlement which the testator desired his son to execute, it being contended by the trustees that these funds would not come within the scope of such disentailing deed.
On the other hand it was contended that these funds were restated or hereditaments which at the time when Arthur Francis Basset attained his majority were subject to the limitations of the settlement of March 34d, 1854. It was stated in the course of the case that the trustees (Lord St. Levan, Mr. Higgins, and Mr. Marriott) had not the slightest desire to interfere with the plaintiff’s enjoyment of the estate in any way, but simply desired to safeguard the interests of those who were entitled to remainders over.
Mr. Justice Stirling, in the course of a very elaborate judgment, decided that the funds were described by the words “all other estates and hereditaments subject to the limitations or the settlement of the 3rd of March, 1854,” saying that in order that a proper disentailing assurance and resettlement should be made according to the directions in the testator’s will it was necessary that both the disentailing assurance and resettlement should include these funds. – Judgement accordingly.
There was a second summons in the case under the title of Basset v. Higgins, in which Arthur Francis Basset was plaintiff and the trustees were defendants. The object of the summons was to obtain sanction for setting aside certain securities so as to satisfy certain annuities left by the testator. The annuities amounted to £795, and the plaintiff proposed to set apart securities which would produce an annual income of £814. In addition there were two annuities amounting to £1300, which the testator had granted during his lifetime, and which was secured upon certain property. The trustees did not oppose, and the Court sanctioned the application.
Mr. Graham Hastings, Q.C., and Mr. Arthur Challis for plaintiff; and Mr. Gifford, Q.C., and Mr. Morton for the trustees.