Letter – John Mitford to Diana Beaumont – 8 Mar 1794

Opinion of Sir John Mitford Sol: Genl.: -



The Rent charge is given to Mr Cockshutt & his Heir, upon trust for Louisa Wentworth until she shall Marry  <under> & with the restriction mentioned in the Will, or for her Life, in case therefore she had not Married during her life, she would have been entitled during her life. If she had Married under the restriction mentioned in the Will;  vizt. after having attained 21, or before that Age with the consent of Mr. Blackett & Mr. Cotton, & with a competent settlement previously made, she & her Husband would I think have been intitled for their lives & the life of [the] Survivor with limitations to her Issue as expressed with respect to the other Rent charge given to Mr. & Mrs Lee & their Children. But as she has Married under 21, without such consent & settlement as required by the Will, it seems to me that she is in the same situation as she would have been if not Married at all, & is intitled to the 3000£ a Year during her life; but as she has not Married under & subject to the restrictions in the Will, it seems to me that her Husband & Children can take nothing in the rent charge as the Gift to them in only “when & so soon as she should Marry as aforesaid”; that is, I apprehend, if under 21, with previous consent & a previous settlement. I think however, that the Will is so obscurely penn’d that the construction is far from clear; altho’ judging only from my own observations on the Will I think a Court ought to decide upon the Construction according to the Opinion w(hic)h I have given – With respect to the 10,000, it appears to me that Marriage after 21, or Marriage under 21 with such consent as stated in the Will, is a previous Condition; & that as that Condition has not been performed the Legacy is not payable, if it shall never become payable it will fall into the residue, & as such be the property of Mr Beaumont; or rather it will never be a charge to the property given to him. But if Mrs  Stacpoole shall hereafter Marry; after having attain’d 21, or before 21 with the consent required by the Will, I incline to think she will on such second Marriage become intitled to the Legacy; I think under the circumstances neither Mr. Beaumont nor the Trustees can properly pay the Rent charge except under the direction of the Court, the Legacy being a charge on Mr Beaumonts property only, he may pay as he thinks proper; because if not due it will only be a present from him to his Sister in Law; & he may in like Manner if he shall think proper make her a present of the Annuity of the Rent charge during her life <leav[in]g> himself to a demand for payment of it over again if Mrs Stacpoole is intitled to it nothwithstanding her Marriage, but he ought I think to require Mrs Stacpoole to make a competent settlement, having regard to the Fortune which Mr Beaumont will in that case give her, with the Accumulations which must have been considerable before the Marriage; considering the Youth of Mrs Stacpoole, & the large Income w[hic]h she had beyond what was necessary for her Maintenance I also think the Court should be call’d upon to adjust what ought to be allowed to Mr Stacpoole for Maintaining his Wife (if intitled to the Rent Charge) during the remainder of her Minority, unless a Competent Settlement shall be made under the direction of the Court – John Mitford Lincolns Inn – March 7th 



Copy of the Opinion of Mr Mansfield.

I think the questions respecting the 10,000£ & the 3000£ a Year both doubtful according to the best Opinion w[hic]h I can form upon them. I think that the Lady has forfeited [the] 10,000£, or rather that the events on which it is made payable can never happen, & that the consequence of this will be that it will fall into the personal Estate & belong to Mr Beaumont, - that the 3000£ a Year is not forfeited & is payable to the Lady, but that Mrs Stacpoole, if she shall survive her, will not be entitled to it. – I think its by no means advisable for the Trustees or Mr Beaumont to pay anything to Mr or Mrs Stacpoole without the direction of the Court of Chancery, - 

J: Mansfield

Temple March 8th 1794



the other Opinion on the other side, -