Page images

twenty-one years, or be married respec- son alone proved the will, and possessed tively, with the consent and approbation of himself of the assets. He died in 1794. the trustees, or of the survivors or survivor In 1802 Sarah M.Dougall died, leaving of them, or of the executors or administra- seven children her surviving. tors of the survivor, which should first hap- In 1804 a bill was filed by Isabella Purpen; and notwithstanding the postponing dew the widow, and the children of Mrs. the payment, assignment, or transfer of the M'Dougall, and the husbands of such of share or shares of such child or children thein as were married, against Susannah respectively until after the decease of the Jackson and Elizabeth Jackson, the sursurvivor of them the said Isabella Purdew viving executrixes of John Jackson, prayand Sarah M‘Dougall, all and every such ing that the property might be secured for share and shares respectively were to be the benefit of Isabella Purdew during her deemed and considered as vested interests life, and for such others of the plaintiffs as in such of the said children, who being a son might be entitled to the same after her or sons, should attain the age of twenty-one death, and that Elizabeth Jackson and Suyears, or die before that age leaving issue, sannah Jackson might be discharged from and who being a daughter or daughters, the trusts. should attain that age, or be married with By a decree made on the 26th of June such consent and approbation as aforesaid, 1806, it was directed that the trust funds, which should first happen; and in case any consisting of 5,3501. Consolidated three per such child or children, being a son or sons, cent. Bank Annuities, and a like sum of should happen to die before attaining the Reduced three per cent. Bank Annuities, said age of twenty-one years without leaving should be transferred to the credit of the issue, or being a daughter or daughters, cause, upon the trusts of the testator's will; should happen to die before attaining that that the dividends should be paid to Isaage without having been married, and with bella Purdew during her life; and that on such consent and approbation as aforesaid, her death, any of the parties interested in then to stand and be possessed of, and in- the fund should be at liberty to apply. terested in, the share or shares respectively, Afterwards, part of the reduced annuities of such child or children respectively so were sold out for the payment of costs, dying, of and in the said consolidated and whereby that portion of the funds was rereduced annuities respectively, and the in- duced to the sum of 5,2231. 13s. 6d. stock. terest, dividends, and annual produce thereof By an indenture, bearing date the 10th respectively, or so much and such part and day of October 1812, and made between parts of such share or shares respectively, Thomas Bolton and Margaret Ann his as should not have been so paid, assigned, wife, (late Margaret Ann M.Dougall, and transferred, disposed of, or applied, in trust one of the seven children of Sarah M‘Doufor the survivors or survivor, or others or gall,) of the one part, and John Rose of the other of such children of her, the said Sa- other part ; after reciting that the said rah M.Dougall, and the same from time to Thomas Bolton was then entitled, in right time to go, accrue and belong, and to be of the said Margaret Ann his wife, amongst paid, assigned or transferred to him, her or other things, to one equal seventh part of them respectively, (if more than one) equally the residuary estate and effects of Thomas between or amongst them, share and share Wigglesworth, expectant and to take effect alike, at such time, and in the same manner, in possession on the decease of Isabella as bis, her or their original share or shares Purdew, and that the monies arising from respectively should become payable, as- the said residuary estate and effects, and signable or transferable to him, her or them invested, consisted of the said 5,3501. three respectively :—and the testator appointed per cent. Consolidated Bank Annuities, and John Clifford, John Jackson, and William 5,2231. 13s. 6d. three per cent. Reduced Camplin, his executors.

Annuities, standing in the name of the Thomas Wigglesworth died on the 5th Accountant General to the credit of this of April 1788, leaving Isabella Purdew, canse : and after further reciting, that the his daughter, and Sarah M.Dougall, his said Thomas Bolton did, in the month of grand-daughter, him surviving. John Jack- May then last, contract and agree with John Rose for the absolute sale to him of viving, and that she subsequently intermarone moiety of his, the said Thomas Bol- ried with, and was then the wife of, William ton's, one undivided seventh part and share John Lenthall ;-—and that by an order in in right of his said wife, of and in the this cause, bearing date on the 29th of Nosaid stocks, and other the stocks and funds vember 1822, and made upon the petition of therein mentioned, subject to the life in- Lenthall and his wife, and also of Thomas terest of the said Isabella Purdew therein, Davis and John Platt, the trustees of their for the price of 2301., in part payment marriage settlement—it was ordered, that whereof the sum of 1601. was advanced at 7461. 4s. 10d., being one-seventh part of the time of making such contract: It was the said 5,2231. 13s. 6d. Reduced Annuitherefore witnessed, that, in pursuance of ties, and the sum of 11l. 3s. 11d., being the said contract, and in consideration of one-seventh part of 781. 7s. 1d. čash in the the sum of 2301. to the said Thomas Bol- Bank, remaining on the credit of this cause, ton and Margaret Ann his wife, paid by the should be carried over to the account of said John Rose, they, the said Thomas Thomas Davis, clerk, and John Platt; and Bolton and Margaret Ann his wife, did as- the Accountant General was to declare the sign unto John Rose, all that one equal trust thereof accordingly, subject to the moiety of all that one undivided seventh further order of the Court; and, after part or share of the said Thomas Bolton giving directions for the taxation of costs, and Margaret Ann his wife, in right of her and for paying them by the sale of so the said Margaret Ann, of and in (amongst much of the 7461. 45. 10d. Reduced other sums) the said several sums of 5,3501. Annuities when carried over, as would three per cent. Consolidated Bank Annui- be sufficient for that purpose, it was ties, and 5,2231, 13s. 6d. three per cent. further ordered, that the residue of the Reduced Bank Annuities, expectant and 7461, 4s. 10d. Reduced Annuities, and also payable, and transferable on the decease 7641. 5s. 9d., being one-seventh part of the of the said Isabella Purdew, and all the 5,3501. Bank three per cent. Annuities, toright, title, and interest at law and in equity gether with any interest which should acof them, the said Thomas Bolton and Mar- crue on the same respectively previously to garet Ann his wife, of, in, and to the same the transfer thereof, should be transferred moiety, to hold the same unto the said John and paid to Thomas Davis and John Platt, Rose, his executors, administrators, and upon the trusts of the indenture of settleassigns : and for the better enabling the ment made on the marriage of Mr. and said John Rose to recover and get in the Mrs. Lenthall. said moiety, they, the said Thomas Bolton The petition added, that the last-menand Margaret Ann his wife, constituted tioned order was still in minutes; that the Rose their attorney, with full power to sue petitioner, being entitled by purchase to a for and recover, and receive the said as- moiety of the stock and cash in the order signed premises, and to give receipts for mentioned, was desirous that the minutes the same.

of the order should be varied, by directing On the 21st of December 1812, an or- à moiety only of the stock and cash to be der was made by the Master of the Rolls, transferred, and paid as therein mentioned. upon the petition of Rose, that a moiety of It therefore prayed, that the minutes of the one-seventh part of the stock standing in order, dated the 29th day of November trust in this cause, should not be transfer- 1822, might be varied, by directing one red or disposed of without notice to Rose. moiety only of the 7461. 4s. 10d. Bank

In April 1823, Rose presented his peti- three per cent. Reduced Annuities, and of tion, which, after stating these matters, the 111.3s., and of the 7641. 5s. 9d. alleged, that Margaret Ann Bolton attained Bank three per cent. Consolidated Annuiher age of twenty-one years on the 20th ties, and of any dividends which should day of April, in the year 1808 ;—that Isa- accrue on the said monies previously to the bella Purdew died on the 18th day of Sep- transfer thereof, to be paid and transferred tember then last past ;—that Thomas Bol- to Platt and Davis; and that, as conseton died in the month of October, 1819, quential upon such variation, the moiety of leaving Margaret Ann his widow him sur- the above-mentioned stocks and cash should be paid and transferred to the petitioner, to such persons and for such purposes as John Rose.

she should by any writing, signed with her On the other hand, Mr. and Mrs. Len- own hand, direct, and in default of, and unthall, and their trustees, Mr. Davis and til such direction, into her own hands for Mr. Platt, presented a counter petition. her separate use; and 'in case she should This petition stated, that by an inden- survive Mr. Lenthall, then from his decease, ture dated the 17th day of September upon trust for her absolutely ; but if she 1814, and made between Thomas Bol- should die in the lifetime of her husband, ton of the first part, Margaret Ann, his then from and after her death, upon trust wife, of the second part, John M.Dougall for such persons as she should by any will, of the third part, and Charles Platt and deed, or writing appoint, and as to such James Platt of the fourth part, (being made parts of the property as should not be so on the occasion of the separation between disposed of by her, upon trust for such perMr. and Mrs. Bolton,) it was witnessed, sons as would have been entitled to her that, for the considerations therein mention- personal estate, in case she had died intesed, Mr. and Mrs. Bolton assigned unto tate and unmarried. Charles Platt and James Platt, their execu- The petitioners further stated, that, on tors, administrators and assigns, among other the 23d of November 1822, they had prethings, all the seventh part or share of them sented their petition, stating their title to the said Thomas Bolton and Margaret Ann the funds in question, under the abovehis wife, of and in the several sums of mentioned will, deed of separation, and 5,3501. three per cent. Consols. Bank An- the indenture of settlement, and praying nuities, and 5,2231. 13s. 6d. three per cent. that Mrs. Lenthall's share of the testator's Reduced Annuities, standing in trust in this residuary estate might be transferred to cause, upon trust to assign and make over them; upon which an order to the effect the said seventh part or share, unto such prayed, was made by Mr. Baron Graham, person or persons, and for such purposes Master Stratford, and Master Harvey, sitas the said Margaret Ann Bolton should ting for the Master of the Rolls ;-—that they at any time, by any deed or deeds, writing had been prevented from having that order or writings, &c. direct or appoint. It stated drawn up and passed, by means of the realso another indenture, bearing date on straining order of the 21st of December the 1st of November 1819, being made be- 1812, made upon the petition of John Rose; tween William John Lenthall of the first and that the indenture of the 18th of Octopart, Margaret Ann Bolton of the second ber 1812, under which Rose claimed, was part, James Platt (who had survived his not valid and operative in law, to pass trustee,) of the third part, and Thomas Mrs. Lenthall's share of the funds. They Davis and John Platt of the fourth part, therefore prayed that Rose's petition might (which was a settlement made in contem- be dismissed with costs, and that the sums plation of the intended marriage between in question might be paid to them, notwithMr. Lenthall and Margaret Ann Bolton, and standing the restraining order of the 21st was executed pursuant to the requisites of December 1812. of the power contained in the deed of the 17th of September 1814,) by which it was

Mr. Sugden and Mr. Girdleston support

ed the claim of Rose ; witnessed, that Margaret Ann Bolton, in pur

Mr. Shadwell and Mr. Sidebottom apsuance of her power, did, with the privity of her intended husband, appoint, among other

peared for Mr. and Mrs. Lenthall. things, all the one-seventh part or share of The question, the counsel for Rose statthe aforesaid sums of stock, subject to Isa- ed, was, whether, where husband and wife bella Purdew's life interest, unto Thomas join in assigning, by deed duly executed, to Davis and John Platt, their executors, a purchaser for valuable consideration, the administrators, and assigns, to hold the wife's vested interest in a legacy, and the saine upon trust, (after the solemnization of husband dies in the lifetime of the wife, the marriage,) to pay the dividends thereof and of the tenant for life of the legacy, the during the joint natural lives of William wife is entitled by right of survivorship to John Lenthall and Margaret Ann his wife, claim the whole fund against her own assign

ment and that of her husband. The point There are many cases and many dicta, had not hitherto been decided : for in which establish the principle which we now Hornsby v. Lee, (2) the interest which the contend for: in Atkins v. Dawbury, (8) wife had was contingent ; neither indeed 3001. was given to a married woman, paywas that a case of authority : it had been able out of a reversion in real estate. The decided without a full consideration and ex- husband assigned this legacy to trustees amination of the subject, and had not been upon certain trusts, and by his will beacquiesced in by the profession.

queathed it upon the same trusts : it was At law the husband may release the wife's held that his assignment was good, that he possibilities : Anon. (3) Theobald v. Duffay, had a power to extinguish or release the (4) and Gage v. Gray.(5) So also he may legacy, and that his acts bound the wife assign a term to which she is entitled in surviving. So in The Duke of Chandos v. remainder. In what respect does a possi- Talbot, (9) Lord King was of a similar bility or a reversionary chattel interest in opinion : holding, that the husband might land differ, as to the present question, from assign for valuable consideration, a possia vested interest in remainder in a sum of bility of a term, or a contingent interest money? If it is said that nothing can pass which he had in right of his wife. The' by the assignment of the husband and wife same doctrine may be found in what is during coverture, except that which he has said by Lord Hardwicke in Grey v. Kenreduced into possession, the answer is, that tish. (10) the same principle must apply to both cases. The cases which may be cited on the The husband's assignment operates as a other side, are all of one or other of two reduction into possession of the wife's re- kinds : they are cases in which the conversionary interest in a term of years: why test has been either between the husband should it not have the same effect upon any and the wife, or between her and the assiglike interest which she may have in other nees of her bankrupt husband. Now a personal property? An actual reduction particular assignee, for valuable considerainto possession, by the husband, of the wife's tion, is in a very different situation from a chose in action is clearly not necessary; for general assignee by operation of law-a his assignment of her chose in action, to principle which is admitted by Sir William which she has a present right, but which Grant in Mitford v. Mitford. (11) That remains a chose in action, is clearly valid : case therefore, and others of the same kind, Worrall v. Marler, (6) Wright v. Morley. form no objection to Rose's claim. Neither (7) And though a chose in action is not can there be here any question with respect capable, strictly speaking, of legal assign- to the wife's equity, to have a settlement ment, it is nevertheless the subject of equit out of the fund; for a moiety of the sum, able assignment; and equitable assignments which was bequeathed to her, remains her of such interests must be construed on the own; and a moiety of the fund has genesame principles as legal assignments of legal rally been thought sufficient to answer the interests are.

wife's equity It might have made a difference, if the It was further argued, that if the wife wife's reversionary interest had been of such a had appeared in court, and consented to the nature, that it could not have fallen into pos- assignment of the fund to Rose, her rights session during the husband's lifetime. But would have been unquestionably bound. it is not necessary to consider what would But there was here what was equivalent to have been the rule of equity under such consent : for she executed the deed of ascircumstances; for the interest of the wife signment to Rose, and though served with was to commence immediately upon Mrs. his petition, that the fund might not be Purdew's death, and Mrs. Purdew might transferred without notice to him, took no have died during the husband's lifetime.

steps to oppose

him. (2) 2 Mad. 16. (3) 2 Roll. 134.

(8) Gilb. Equ. Rep. 88. (4) 2 P. Wms. 608.

(9) 2 P. Wms. 608. (5) 1 Salk. 327.

(10) 1 Atkyns, 280 ; and Mr. Cox's note, 1 P. (6) 1 P. Wms. 460, 0.

Wms. 459. (7) 11 Ves. 12.

(11) 9 Vesey, 87.

There were cited also :

made upon her ; nor was her consent taken Howard v. Damiani, 2 Jac. & W. 458.

in court ; so that clearly it would not be

followed now. The doctrine of the other Saddington v. Kinsman, 1 Bro. C. C. 51.

cases which had been cited, made, upon Jenson v. Moulson, 2 Atkyns, 417. Bosville v. Brander, 1 P. Wms. 458.

the whole, against the validity of the hus

band's assignment; and it was futile to enMr. Shadwell, for Mr. and Mrs. Lenthall, deavour to draw inferences from particular admitted, that the precise point, now in dis- expressions ascribed by the reporter to the pute, had not hitherto been before the judge, in opposition to or unconnected with Court. But he insisted that Hornsby v. Lee the points expressly decided. As to Howard was an express authority in his favour; that v. Damiani, it was a consent case, and the decision there had never been im- therefore decided nothing. peached ; and that the doctrine, which Mr. Shadwell also citedwas applied in it to the wife's contingent

Richard v. Chambers, 10 Ves. jun. 580. interest, was equally applicable to her vest

Seaman v. Duel, 10 Ves. jun. 580. ed interests in remainder. Such interests the husband could not reduce into posses

Mitford v. Mitford, 9 Ves. jun. 87.

Wildman v. Wildman, 9 Ves. jun. 174. sion; he could not make them his own,

Woollands v. Crowcher, 12 Ves. jun. 174. before the period, when they were to take

Pickard v. Roberts, 3 Mad. 384. effect in possession or enjoyment, arrived ; and whether that period might or might

Gayer v. Wilkinson, 1 Bro. C. C. 44, 50 n. not arrive during the coverture, was of no

Mr. Sidebottom, in support of Mr. Shadimportance. The clear proof, that the re- well's argument, contended, that there was versionary interest of the wife in personal

no analogy between this case and that of property, was not the husband's to dispose the husband's assignment of the wife's of, was this--that it did not pass by the reversionary interest in a chattel real. With assignment in bankruptcy to his assignees respect to his alleged right to release the The assignment in bankruptcy passed un

wife's possibilities, that release was equivaquestionably every thing over which the lent to a receipt of the money, and a disbankrupt had any disposing power. How

charge to the person who was to pay it; then could he, by assignment to a pur

and could therefore be of no effect where chaser for valuable consideration, convey

he could not be entitled to receive, and that which he himself had not that which consequently could not grant a discharge. in the event of his bankruptcy, would not

Neither were the right of releasing and the have passed to his assignees ?" The rights right of assigning convertible terms. The of the assignee, for valuable consideration, right of the husband in the wife's chose in could not be greater than those of his as- action, was merely a right to reduce it into signor. The husband could not have re- possession; and this chose in action never leased this legacy or any part of it: for it is

was reduced into possession ; for it would laid down by Littleton,(12) that a man can

be absurd to give that appellation either to release such right only as he had at the time

the execution of the assignment by the hus. of the release; and it appears from Thom- band, or to his receipt of the purchase money son v. Butler,(13) that a husband cannot re- from the assignee. He cited. lease at law the wife's future chose in action. Blount v. Bestland, 5 Vesey, 515.

The case of Atkins v. Dawbury, which Doswell v. Earle, 12 Vesey, jun. 473. has been cited, proved nothing ; or, if it Bates v. Dandy, 2 Atkyns, 207. proved any thing, proved too much. The White v. St. Barbe, 2 Ves. & Beames, 399. legacy there was not a reversionary legacy, though it was payable out of a reversion ;

THE MASTER OF THE Rolls. (14) for the reversion might have been sold, and The question is one of such general imthe charge immediately satisfied. The portance, that I will not now decide it. I wife, however, had no settlement out of it do not even mean that the argument should

be concluded at present. The most satis(12) S. 445, 446. (13) Moore, 522.

(14) Sir Thomas Plumer.

« EelmineJätka »