Talk:Cestui que

Re Chudleigh's Case?

It would be very helpful if someone in the know would explain, at least in outline, what the plaintif wanted and what the defense wanted. Without this basic information, the rest of it is very difficult to grasp! 76.118.23.40 (talk)

Are you SURE about that--?

"Example 3: Beth leaves property in trust to hold for Mary's children for life and on the death of Mary's last surviving child, the property reverts to Mary's living female grandchildren. If no female grandchild is living, then the property reverts to the Cathedral School for Girls. Mary is living at the time of Beth's death. The gift to the Cathedral School is void.[54]"

--What does MARY living have to do with the disposition of the property? Beth's will cut her out of it, did it not?

The question is whether Mary's CHILDREN are living. If Mary's children and female grandchildren are no longer living, by this description, the property ought to go to the Cathedral School for Girls, whether Mary is alive or dead. If that's not the case, because of something implicit in the law, then that reasoning ought to be made explicit.76.118.23.40 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

Wentworth?

This article says:

The land had been granted by George III of England in New Hampshire in 1761. It was held in corporation by a form of cestui que. On October 30, 1794, the State of Vermont passed a statute whereby the land of the Society would be appropriated by the state.

This is an odd way of putting it. It was granted by George III in New Hampshire? Was it one of the well-over-100 grants signed by Governor Benning Wentworth of New Hampshire? That would explain why it was granted "in New Hampshire" when the land was in what later became Vermont. That the king actually condoned the governor's "grants" is far from clear, to say the least, especially in view of the king's order-in-council signed on July 20, 1764. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)