Site icon swarb.co.uk

Tyrrell v Clark: 17 Jan 1854

The stat. 4 and 5 Will. 4, c. 22, requires, in order to exclude apportionment, either an express direction that there shall be none, or language so express in the terms of gift that apportionment is clearly impossible consistently with it. Inference from the whole tenor and context of the will is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the statute.
Sir R T Kindersley considered the meaning of an ‘express stipulation’ and how those words should be construed.

Judges:

Sir R T Kindersley

Citations:

[1854] EngR 116, (1854) 2 Drew 86, (1854) 61 ER 651

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHartley and Others v King Edward VI College SC 24-May-2017
The teacher appellants challenged the quantification of deductions from their salaries after engaging in lawful strike days.
Held: The appeal as allowed. The correct approach under section 2 to a case like this, where the contract is an annual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.292973

Exit mobile version