Corlett v Radcliffe and Others
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 03 December 1860 |
| Date | 03 December 1860 |
| Court | Privy Council |
English Reports Citation: 15 E.R. 251
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE ISLE OF MAN.
[121] ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE ISLE OF MAN. ROBERT CORLETT,-Appellant; CHARLES RADCLIFFE and Other*,- Respondents * [Nov. 30, Dec. 1, 3, I860]. According to the general law prevailing as well in the Isle of Man as in England, a deed is void against creditors when the debtor is in a state of insolvency, or when the effect of the deed is to leave the debtor without the means of paying his present debts [14 Moo. P.C. 135]. Semble. By the law of the Isle of Man Intack land is liable to be attached and sold for debt, and Quarterland also when acquired by purchase or otherwise than by inheritance [14 Moo. P.C. 134-5]. When a debtor possessed of lands liable to be sold for debt is in prison he cannot, by the law of the Isle of Man, be discharged, until he has made a mortgage of his lands in favour of his creditors [14 Moo. P.C. 135]. * Present: The Right Hon. Lord Chelmsford,"the Right Hon. The Lord Justice Knight Bruce, the Right Hon. The Lord Justice Turner, and the Right Hon. Sir John Taylor Coleridge. 251 XIV MOORE, 122 COELETT V. RADCLIFFE [i860] A deed of settlement and a conveyance in favour of the son of the grantor, upon certain beneficial considerations for his wife and younger children, made by the grantor when in insolvent circumstances, set aside as being fraudulent and void against the creditors of the grantor [14 Moo. P.O. 141-2]. This appeal was brought from a decree of the Court of Chancery in the Isle of Man, whereby that Court declared that a deed, dated the 4th of July, 1846, made in favour of the Appellant, his son, was a fraud against the creditors of Robert Corlett, deceased, whose debts were due previous to the 23rd of October, 1848, and ought to be set aside, so far as the creditors were concerned; and decreed the same accordingly; and ordered that an estate called the Craig estate, or such part thereof as might be necessary to [122] discharge such debts, should be sold, and the proceeds distributed amongst the creditors of Corlett, according to their respective rights. It appeared that the deceased, Corlett, was, in and previously to the year 1846, in possession of certain estates, situate in the parishes of Andreas and Lezayre, called Craig, Kerroo garroo and Karroo-moar, in the Island, commonly known by the name of the Craig estate, which was said to consist partly of Intack and partly of Quarter-land estates of inheritance. That, being so seized, the deceased, with the consent of the Kespondent, Mary Corlett, his wife, by a deed dated the 4th of July, 1846, made between him and Mary, his wife, of the first part, the Appellant, his son, of the second part, and the Respondent, John Corlett, of the third part, in consideration of natural love arid affection for the Appellant, and of the several payments, covenants, and conditions to be by him, the Appellant, made and performed, gave, granted, sold and conveyed to John Corlett, all and singular the estates, lands and premises, called the Craig estate, to have and to hold the same unto the Respondent, John Corlett, his heirs and assigns, in trust, and for the uses, intents, and purposes, in the deed mentioned and set forth; and, amongst others, in trust, to suffer and permit the deceased, Corlett, and Mary Corlett to possess the estate during their joint natural lives, save as thereafter mentioned, and upon the decease of either of them, or upon the marriage of the Appellant, during the joint natural lives of the deceased, Corlett, and the Respondent, Mary Corlett, to suffer and permit the Appellant to possess one moiety of the estate, subject to one half of the interest upon the sum of ,4000, [123] the amount of two mortgages chargeable upon the property (one of the mortgages bearing date the 15th of February, 1845, and passed to one Dumbell, for the sum of 3500; and the other of the mortgages, bearing even date with the settlement of the 4th of July, 1846, being for the further sum of 500, agreed by such settlement to be raised as therein mentioned); and to the payment of a sum of 700, to the Respondent, John Corlett, for the purposes therein mentioned ; and in further trust, upon the decease of the survivor of them, the deceased, Corlett, and the Respondent, Mary Corlett, to convey the remaining moiety of the Craig estate, to the Appellant, his heirs and assigns; and the Appellant, in consideration of the settlement, covenanted to pay the sum of 700, to John Corlett, his executors and administrators, upon receiving a conveyance of the first moiety of the estate, whether upon his the Appellant's marriage, or upon the death of the deceased, Corlett, or Mary his wife, as the case might be; and the deceased, Corlett, reserved to himself, and his assigns, and Mary Corlett, during their joint lives, and the life of the survivor of them, a right to cut turf, and fell timber, as therein mentioned. And the Appellant, in consideration of the settlement released in favour of the younger children of the deceased, Corlett, and Mary his wife, his right and interest in and to a certain legacy of 500 left by the Will of Catherine Stephen to the Respondent, Mary Corlett, and her children and the Appellant agreed to join the deceased, Corlett, in raising on the security of the estate the sum of 500, in addition to the sum of 3500 : and by the same indenture of settlement it was provided, that in case the Appellant should leave a widow, she should be [124] entitled to a widow's right in such part of the estates as the Appellant was in possession of at the time of his death. The sum of 500, was accordingly raised by the deceased, Corlett, and the Appellant, on the security of their personal bond and of the Craig estate by deed of bond and mortgage, to Dumbell, dated the 4th of July, 1846, and applied by the deceased, Corlett, in payment of debts due by him. This sum, however, did not 252 CORLETT V. RAUCLIFFE [1860] XIV MOORE, 125 suffice to pay the deceased Corlett's debts. The mortgage deed recited the intention of the deceased, Corlett, to execute a deed of settlement of the estate upon his son the Appellant, of even date with the mortgage. The bond and deed of mortgage and indenture of settlement were left with Dumbell, for the purpose of registration, and he registered the bond and deed of mortgage on the 24th of October, 1846, but omitted to register the indenture of settlement until the 23rd of October, 1848. In the month of March, 1847, the Appellant joined the deceased, Corlett, iu a bond and deed of mortgage of the estate for the sum of 300 to Elinor Mary Kissack, which sum was received by the deceased, Corlett, and the interest thereon was to be payable by him; and to secure the payment thereof, the deceased assigned a policy of assurance effected upon his life, the premium whereof he was also bound to pay out of the rents of the estate; and the Appellant also joined the deceased, Corlett, in a further bond to Dumbell, for the sum of 220, the interest whereupon it was also agreed should be paid by the deceased, Corlett. The Appellant married on the 17th of October, [125] 1848, and thereupon became entitled under the settlement of the 4th July, 1846, to a moiety of the Craig estate, and he accordingly entered into possession, and it was then agreed that the sum of 700 should be left as a lien and charge upon the estate during the joint lives and the life of the survivor of them, the deceased, Corlett, and the Respondent Mary Corlett, his wife. The deceased, Corlett, continued to farm the estate up to the year 1849, and was considered the owner. Having incurred losses in his farming business, he by deed bearing date the 31st of October, 1849, made between him and the Appellant, in consideration...
To continue reading
Request your trial