Catherine Cumming against Ince and Wife and Hooper and Wife

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date11 November 1847
Date11 November 1847
CourtCourt of the Queen's Bench

English Reports Citation: 116 E.R. 418

QUEENS BENCH

Catherine Cumming against Ince and Wife and Hooper and Wife

S. C. 17 L. J. Q. B. 105; 12 Jur. 331.

[112] catherine gumming against inge and wife and hooper and wife. Tuesday, November llth, 1847. Plaintiff being confined in a lunatic asylum, and an inquisition under a commission of lunacy being held upon her, and attended by her counsel, before any verdict was given an agreement was signed by her counsel and counsel attending for the promoters of the commission, that the plaintiff should be released from confinement, that certain arrangements should be made as to property which she claimed, that the title deeds relating thereto, which had been taken from her when she was confined, and now were in the hands of the promoters, should be given up and placed in the hands of H., and that the commission should ba superseded. Accordingly, plaintiff was released ; and the deeds handed over to H. Plaintiff then brought detinue against H. for the deeds. An interpleader rule was obtained, on the claim of the promoters, by which the proceedings were atayed, and a feigned issue brought, by plaintiff against the promoters, to try whether plaintiff was entitled to the deeds notwithstanding the arrangement. Held : 1. That, on the trial of such issue, it was not necessary that plaintiff should prove her title to the deeds, the question being only whether the agreement prevented her from insisting on her title. 2. That it was rightly left to the jury, on evidence of the state of plaintiff's mind and health at the time of the agreement being made, to say whether the consent of her counsel was obtained by constraint and without her free will; and, the jury having so found, that plaintiff was entitled to the verdict: and that the legality of the restraint (assuming it to have been legal), and the consent of counsel, furnished no conclusive proof that the agreement was not void by duress. [S. C. 17 L. J. Q. B. 105; 12 Jur. 331.] This was a feigned issue, to try whether the plaintiff was, on 17th December 1846, entitled to certain deeds and writings specified in the issue, " notwithstanding a certain arrangement alleged to have been entered into on the 22d day of September," 1846. On the trial, before Erie J., at the Middlesex sittings alter Easter term 1847, the following facts appeared. The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to certain landed property, as tenant in fee, and to the title deeds relating thereto. In May 1846, at which time she was a married woman, she was forcibly taken to a private lunatic aaylum, and there detained till released as hereafter mentioned; and the title deeds, which then were in her dwelling house, were taken from thence. The two male defendants had married her daughters, the two female defendants. In July 1846, the husband of the plaintiff died. Afterwards, a commission of lunacy was sued out against the plaintiff, promoted by the defendants; and an inquisition was holden, which [113] was attended by counsel for the plaintiff on the one side and for the defendants on the other. Before any verdict was taken, an arrangement was entered into, which was reduced to writing, and signed by the counsel on both sides. The material parts were in the words following. "Be Gumming. " Promoters to withdraw from further prosecuting inquiry, stating that they had done so under an impression that it was desirable for all parties that an arrangement should be made, that an arrangement had been come to that Mrs. Gumming should be immediately discharged from all restraint; arrangement to be that three trustees should be appointed, in whom property vested; one to be named by Mrs. Ince and meb. Hooper, the other by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Reynolds v Altomoravia Holdings Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 30 d2 Junho d2 2015
    ...under a mutual mistake of fact. Specifically a compromise can be set aside on the ground that it was obtained by duress: Cumming v Ince (1847) 11 Q.B. 112. Thus the compromise and the agreement sought to be set aside by the Plaintiff in these proceedings can be set aside on the grounds of d......
  • O'Sullivan v Weisz
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 18 d5 Março d5 2005
    ...O'Sullivan Plaintiff and Ronald Stuart Weisz Defendant WEILDING v SANDERSON 1897 2 CH 534 HICKMAN v BERENS 1895 2 CH 638 CUMMING v INCE 1847 11 QB 112 BINDER v ALACHOUZOS 1972 2 AER 189 O'DUFFY v LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND UNREP KELLY 3.12.2004 2004 IEHC 372 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Compromise o......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT