Barham v The Earl of Clarendon
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1852 |
| Date | 01 January 1852 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 68 E.R. 867
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 22 L. J. Ch. 1057; 17 Jur. 336; 1 W. R. 96.
10HAKE, 126. BARHAM V. EARL OF CLARENDON 867 [126] barham v. the eakl of clarendon. Nov. 15, 16, Dec. 17,1852. [S. C. 22 L. J. Ch. 1057; 17 Jur. 336; 1 W. K. 96.] An estate was devised to the eldest son of the testator, in fee, charged with four portions of £5000 each for younger children. The eldest son, on his marriage, settled the estate to the use of his intended wife after his decease, for her life, if she should survive him, with remainder to himself in fee, and covenanted within six months to pay off the four sums of £5000 and release the estate therefrom. He paid off one sum of £5000, and died intestate. Held that the husband was not a purchaser under the settlement, and that the covenant in the settlement could not be taken to have been for indemnity only ; but that, so far as the wife and younger children were concerned, the husband had adopted the portions as his own debt, and that he had also made them his debt as between his real and personal representatives. When a man covenants upon his marriage to lay out money in the purchase of land, and to settle the land when purchased in favour of his wife and children, with remainder to himself in fee, the money is converted into land, not only in favour of the wife and children, but in favour of the heir also; and the heir may enforce the covenant where any of the uses of the settlement subsist at the death of the covenantor. A special case. J. F. Barham, who died in 1832, devised his Stockbridge estates to trustees, to raise £5000 each for his sons William and Charles, and his daughters Mary and Caroline; and, subject thereto, he devised and bequeathed his real and personal estates to his son, John Barham, his heirs, executors, &c., absolutely. By a settlement of January 1834, made on the marriage of John Barham with Lady Katharine Grrimston, John Barham covenanted, within six months after the solemnisation of the [127] marriage, to pay off the said four sums of £5000 and interest, and release the estates therefrom, and procure the Stockbridge estates and other estates to be conveyed, freed and discharged from the said sums, to trustees, upon- the trusts therein mentioned, until the marriage and during the life of John Barham; and, after his decease, to the use of Lady Katharine G-rimston, in case she should survive John Barham, for her life, with remainder (after some uses which did not arise) to John Barham in fee. John Barham paid off the £5000 to Charles, but not the three other sums. John Barham died in 1838, intestate and|without issue, leaving William, his brother, his heir at law. Lady Katharine, his widow, and his said two brothers and two sisters were his next of kin and persons entitled to his distributive personal estate. Lady Katharine became his administratrix. William died in 1840, having devised and bequeathed his real and personal estate to Charles, his brother, who thereby became entitled to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v Smith
...DIVISION. SMITH and SMITH. Biggs v. SadlierENR 10 Ir. Eq. R. 522; 4 H. L. C. 436, 461. Barham v. The Earl of ClarendonENR 10 Hare, 126. Massy v. TraversUNK 10 Ir. C. L. R. 459. In re Browne's Estate 13 Ir. Ch. R. 283. Thompson v. Simpson 1 Dr. & W. 489. Burrowes v. GoreENR 6 H. L. C. 907. L......
-
Martin v Smyth and Others
...Morse v. TuckerENR 5 Hare, 79. Tewart v. LawsonELR L. R. 18 Eq. 490. Mortlock v. Buller 10 Ves. 307. Barham v. The Earl of ClarendonENR 10 Hare, 126. Scott v. BeecherUNK 5 Mad. 96. Swainson v. Swainson 6 D. M. & G. 648. Hamilton v. Worley 2 Ves. Jun. 62. Tweddell v. Tweddell 2 Br. C. C. 101......
-
Tucker v Loveridge
...The money was never at home in the testator's hands. The principles governing the case are laid down in Barham v. Earl of Clarendon (10 Hare, 126, 132). We admit that if the daughter had died in the testator's lifetime the money would have been at home ; but at his death trusts were subsist......
-
Re The Estate of John Eakins Browne, Appellant; Theobald Billing, Respondent
...6 H. & N. 849; S. C., 30 Law Jour., N. S., Exch., 113. Massy v. TraversIR 10 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 459. Barham v. The Earl of clarendonENR 10 Hare, 126. Beere v. Head 3 J. & L. 340. Nairn v. Prowse 6 Ves. 751. Dilkes v. Broadmead 29 Law Jour., Chan. 310. Simpson v. JonesENR 2 Russ. & M. 365. Cl......