Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

The Contested Will of Ann Cracherode: Morice v. The Bishop of Durham, Study notes of Law

An account of a legal dispute, morice v. The bishop of durham, over the validity of the will of ann cracherode, worth an estimated £80,000, and the role of shute bishop barrington in its creation. Ann, described as weak and infirm, left her estate to her sister ann cracherode, who was influenced by bishop barrington to make a residuary bequest to the bishop for charitable purposes. However, the court ruled that the trust was not valid, and the money was to be returned to the next of kin. The document also includes allegations of coercive behavior by bishop barrington.

What you will learn

  • What allegations were made against Shute Bishop Barrington in relation to Ann's will?
  • Why was the trust in Ann's will deemed invalid by the court?
  • What was the value of Ann Cracherode's estate?

Typology: Study notes

2021/2022

Uploaded on 09/27/2022

mrbean3
mrbean3 🇬🇧

4

(5)

214 documents

1 / 3

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
The Case of Morice v. The Bishop of Durham
Researched and explained by Neil B. Maw
Document: PRO Ref: TS11/371
Court of Chancery. The Rev William Morice and Mary Morice, Spinster, Plaintiffs
Shute Lord Bishop of Durham, Richard Bullock, Edward Bullock, Burton Morice, Anna
Maria Dobson, Elizabeth Dobson, Susannah Dobson and his Majesty’s Attorney General,
Defendants. Bill filed 27th January 1803
The second statement is also a Court of Chancery document and headed, to the Right
Honourable John Lord Eldon, Barron Eldon of Eldon in the County of Durham, Lord
High Chancellor of Great Britain.
Humbly complaining is the Rev William Morice of Gower Street in the Parish of St. Giles
in the Fields in the County of Middlesex, Doctor of Divinity, and Mary Morice of the
same parish, Spinster. 9th Feb 1804
A précis of the two very lengthy documents
The Rev. Clayton Mordaunt Cracherode, late of Queen’s Square, (died 5th April 1799)
within the City and Liberty of Westminster, Clerk. At the time of his death he was in
possession of real estate at Wymandleigh and Berkhamstead in the County of Hertford
and a freehold house in Queens Square, Westminster which were worth approximately
£30,000. He also had personal effects and estate to the approximate value of £50,000. He
made his Will on 9th Sept 1792. Apart from specific legacies he left the rest of his estate to
his sister Ann Cracherode, of Queens Square, Spinster. At this time Ann was around 80
years of age, very deaf and used an ear trumpet, and was described as weak and infirm.
Shute Bishop Barrington was a friend of Clayton Mordaunt Cracherode but his sister Ann
did not know him. A day or so after Clayton’s death, the Bishop called on Ann and
offered her any assistance. She asked him to help her set out her new Will. It was claimed
pf3

Partial preview of the text

Download The Contested Will of Ann Cracherode: Morice v. The Bishop of Durham and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!

The Case of Morice v. The Bishop of Durham

Researched and explained by Neil B. Maw Document: PRO Ref: TS11/ Court of Chancery. The Rev William Morice and Mary Morice, Spinster, Plaintiffs Shute Lord Bishop of Durham, Richard Bullock, Edward Bullock, Burton Morice, Anna Maria Dobson, Elizabeth Dobson, Susannah Dobson and his Majesty’s Attorney General, Defendants. Bill filed 27th^ January 1803 The second statement is also a Court of Chancery document and headed, to the Right Honourable John Lord Eldon, Barron Eldon of Eldon in the County of Durham, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain. Humbly complaining is the Rev William Morice of Gower Street in the Parish of St. Giles in the Fields in the County of Middlesex, Doctor of Divinity, and Mary Morice of the same parish, Spinster. 9 th^ Feb 1804 A précis of the two very lengthy documents The Rev. Clayton Mordaunt Cracherode, late of Queen’s Square, (died 5th^ April 1799) within the City and Liberty of Westminster, Clerk. At the time of his death he was in possession of real estate at Wymandleigh and Berkhamstead in the County of Hertford and a freehold house in Queens Square, Westminster which were worth approximately £30,000. He also had personal effects and estate to the approximate value of £50,000. He made his Will on 9th^ Sept 1792. Apart from specific legacies he left the rest of his estate to his sister Ann Cracherode, of Queens Square, Spinster. At this time Ann was around 80 years of age, very deaf and used an ear trumpet, and was described as weak and infirm. Shute Bishop Barrington was a friend of Clayton Mordaunt Cracherode but his sister Ann did not know him. A day or so after Clayton’s death, the Bishop called on Ann and offered her any assistance. She asked him to help her set out her new Will. It was claimed

by some people that in general, she seemed not to know just how much she had inherited which was far more than she realised. There are numerous assertions made as to the conduct of Bishop Barrington, the main point being that he overly influenced Ann Cracherode and took advantage of her old age and weak mind. One assertion made was that the Bishop had been heard to say to Ann that there may be a little money left after her bills and expenses had been paid and the legacies distributed, and that he asked her what should become of the residue and she replied that, “ Your Lordship will take care of that .” It was therefore agreed to make a Residuary Bequest that he would dispose of any residual money to Liberal and Benevolent purposes. But the fact was, and some suggest very plain to see that there was an enormous fortune lying within the properties, lands and the general estates of Clayton Mordaunt Cracherode and his sister Ann. Another incident was said to have occurred whereby at a meeting with her Attorney, Ann said she had been told that a beneficiary of a Will could not be appointed as an Executor, but the Attorney pointed out that this was not the case. Bishop Barrington, who was present within the room is said to have interrupted and informed Ann that if he was not to be her sole executor then he would have no more to do with her affairs, and that he then walked off into an adjoining room. If this is true then it could well be described as coercive behaviour. Ann died in July 1802 and Bishop Barrington proved her Will in the Prerogative Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury soon after. The Will was then contested by her cousins William and Mary Morice and consequently the case of Morice v. The Bishop of Durham came about. Subsequently, the Court of Chancery heard the case. After bequests there was around £30,000 for the Executor (Bishop Barrington) to donate to such objects of benevolence and liberality at his discretion. The key legal point was that the Testator (Ann) had made a ‘ Trust ’ within the Will for objects of benevolence and liberality (Charity). And it was this