Cray v Mansfield
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 February 1749 |
| Date | 07 February 1749 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 1093
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
1VES. SEf. 380. CRAY V. MANSFIELD 1093 cray v. mansfield, February 7, 1749-50. Sir John Strange, Master of the Rolls, in the absence of Lord Chancellor. Voluntary conveyance, by one lately come of age (see 2 Ves. sen. 547, and 9 Ves. 292), to an agent, of a reversion of no great value, for a nominal consideration of 180 (" for the nominal consideration of, &c." E. L.), and containing covenants as in the case of a purchase, not absolutely rescinded (see 2 Ves. sen. 259, and Supplement, p. 167), as not being a case of fraud; but the transaction modified by decree, that the agent should release the covenants at his own expence, and recite the impropriety of them as referable to a gift. The defendant had been steward or agent to the plain tiffs father's estate, and kept his court during his life ; and after his death was appointed receiver of the infant's estate under the order of this court; for which he had a salary during the minority. This bill was to set aside a conveyance, which the plaintiff admitted he executed to the defendant after coming of age ; and which as framed and executed, was a conveyance from the plaintiff of the reversion of some leasehold estates that were out on lives, for the consideration of one hundred and eighty pounds. The case stated by the plaintiff for this was, that the defendant applied to him to add the life of the defendant's son to one of the tenements ; which he promised to do, directing the defendant to prepare a deed for that purpose, which was all he proposed to have* given him ; frequently declaring that he would take no consideration for it; saying he was ten times more obliged to the defendant, than the value of that: that the defendant brought to his lodging this deed ready ingrossed, and offered it for execution : that he was imposed on therein; being a hasty transaction, brought in a clandestine manner, and executed without the plaintiffs being apprised of the contents : that the defendant carved for himself by inserting that consideration of 180 when no estimate had been made, Clarkson v. Hanway, 2 Wms. 205, is applicable. So Pierce v. Waring (see 2 Ves. sen. 548. Et vide Oldham v. Head, ibid. 259), [380] where Mr. Waring was guardian of Mr. Hall, who lived with him; had horses, dogs, &c., kept by him; and whose visitors were all entertained at Waring's own house, when Hall stood candidate for Ludlow. After coming of age, Hall made Waring a gift of 3000 East India stock, for his many kindnesses and services. Hall was satisfied with the gift, and did not dispute it; but his representative after his death brought a bill to set it aside. There was no proof of imposition : the only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horan v MacMahon
...and BARRY, L. JJ. HORAN and MACMAHON Williamson v. CodringtonENR 1 Ves. Sen. 511. Hales v. CoxENR 32 Beav. 118. Cray v. MansfieldENR 1 Ves. Sen. 379. Stannard v. Ullithorne 4 Moore & Scott, 359. Nanney v. WilliamsENR 22 Beav. 452. Bulkley v. WilfordENR 2 Cl. & Fin. 102. Green-Field v. Bates......