Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

A MOTHER’S WILL

DAUGHTER AWARDED IIOXEY. DIFFERENCES RE HOUSEKEEPING ARRANGEMENTS. The Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, yesterday "delivered judgment in the case of Elizabeth Jackson v. Louis Goodger. This was an action to recover from the' defendant, as executor of the will of Elizabeth Goqdger, a legacy left by the will. The gift was in these words: “And I give and bequeath by clothing and personal effects other than my saiil furniture unto my daughter, Elizabeth Jackson.” His Honour said defendant, as executor of the will, got the sum of £4lB 8s 4d which was in the bank and £l-1 10s cash in the house. He now claimed that these were not bequeathed by the will, and did not come under his executorship. . He had obtained the moneys as executor, but urged that he had no right to obtain them, and that they had not been bequeathed. He did not take out or obtain letters of administration of these moneys, acting (mlv as executor. If thete was an intestacy he should have taken out letr ters of administration. After quoting cases. His Honour said the words “personal effects,” therefore, according to what might be termed the testator’s dictionary, included furniture. There was nothing in the will to restrict the general meaning of the words. There could be no question of inference of agency between a mother managing her own house in her own name in that she became an agent for her son. If the question of agency was raised it would have to be proved and not inferred. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. His Honour was therefore of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to claim tile money as moneys bequeathed to her subject to all just deductions (if any), and that an account must be taken if an agreement as to the moneys was not reached. -The question of costs could bo reserved until the amount found due in decided. Judgment was given accordinglv. Messrs Johnston and O. and R. Recre were for the plaintiff, and Messrs IVebb. Richmond, and Cornish for the defendant.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM19250324.2.87

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12095, 24 March 1925, Page 6

Word Count
344

A MOTHER’S WILL New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12095, 24 March 1925, Page 6

A MOTHER’S WILL New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12095, 24 March 1925, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert