Dent v Bennett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 41 E.R. 105
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 7 Sim. 539; 5 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 58; 8 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 125; 3 Jur. (0. S.), 99. See Lyon v. Home, 1868, L. R. 6 Eq. 674; Richards v. French, 1870, 22 L. T. 329; Mitchell v. Homfray, 1881, 8 Q. B. D. 592. Cf. Morley v. Loughnan [1893], 1 Ch. 736.
dent v. bennett. Nov. 19, 20, 21, 1838; Jan. 29, 1839. [S. C. 7 Sim. 539; 5 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 58 ; 8 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 125 ; 3 Jur. (0. S.), 99. See Lyon v. Home, 1868, L. R. 6 Eq. 674; Richards v. French, 1870, 22 L. T. 329; Mitchell v. ffmnfray, 1881, 8 Q. B. D. 592. Cf. Motley v. Lmghnan [1893], 1 Ch. 736.] Agreement obtained by a surgeon from a deceased patient set aside, upon the ground that the Court was satisfied that the patient never did agree to or intend to direct what in the alleged agreement he was represented as agreeing to and directing, and C. XXI.-4* 106 DENT V. BENNETT 4 MY. & CR. 270. that his signature, if genuine, must have been obtained by fraud, or under such circumstances as rendered it the duty of a Court of Equity to protect the patient and hia estate from being prejudiced by it. This relief stands upon a general principle applying to all the variety of relations in which dominion may be exercised by one person over another. This was a suit to restrain the Defendant from proceeding in an action at law upon a written agreement in his favour, alleged to have been entered into by Jonathan Dent, .of whose will the Plaintiff was the executor, and to have the alleged agreement delivered up to be cancelled. [270] The terms of the agreement, and the statements of the Defendant's answer to the original bill with respect to it, appear in Mr. Simons's report of the proceedings before the Vice-Chancellor upon the question of dissolving the common injunction upon the coming in of that answer. (7 Sim. 539.) The bill was afterwards amended, and the Defendant put in his answer to the amended bill on the 30th of May 1836. In this answer the Defendant admitted that Crowder, the person in whose presence the agreement was stated to have been signed, did not, at that time, put his name or any initials or mark on the agreement, but paid minute attention to the testator's signature, and that the Defendant remained with the testator for about half-an-hour after he had signed the same, without having the agreement witnessed or signed by Crowder or himself; and that he took it away without having signed it, and kept it until the testator's death ; and he believed the testator had no copy, the original draft having been burnt by the Defendant in the testator's presence, immediately after its contents had been fairly copied for the testator's signature. Some evidence was afterwards taken, the particulars of which will be found in the Lord Chancellor's judgment. The cause now came on to be heard. Mr. Knight Bruce, Mr. Bethell, and Mr. Wright, for the Plaintiff. Mr. Wigram and Mr. Stuart, for the Defendant. [271] In the course of the argument the following cases were cited and commented upon; Fillers v. Beaumont (1 Vern. 100), Bridgman v. Green (2 Ves. sen. 627), Gibson v. Jeyes (6 Ves. 266), Harris v. Tremenheere (15 Ves. 34), Huguenin v. Basehy (14 Ves. 273), Griffiths v. Robins (3 Mad. 191), Lord Selsey v. Rhocules (2 S. & S. 41), Popham v. Brooke (5 Kuss. 8), Earl of fVinchilsea v. Garetty (1 Mylne & Keen, 253), Nical v. Faughan (5 Bligh, N. S. 505; and 7 Bligh, N. S. 395), Pratt v. Barker (I Sim. 1; and 4 Russ. 507), Hunter v. Atkins (3 Mylne & Keen, 113), Simpson v. Lord Howden (3 Mylne & Craig, 97). Jan. 29, 1839. the lord changellok [Cottenham]. The object of this bill is to have a certain agreement, alleged to have been signed by the Plaintiff's testator, delivered up to be cancelled ; and for an injunction against an action at law upon it. The Vice-Chancellor granted the injunction, which has not been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thorne v Kennedy
...Morgan [1985] AC 686 at 709. 124Spong v Spong (1914) 18 CLR 544 at 550; [1914] HCA 52 quoting Dent v Bennett (1839) 4 My & Cr 269 at 277 [ 41 ER 105 at 125Johnson v Buttress (1936) 56 CLR 113 at 134–135; [1936] HCA 41. 126 Reasons of Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane and Edelman JJ at [34]–[3......
-
Crockett v Crockett
...should l e reversed.] English Reports Citation: 67 E.R. 937 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY Crockett and Crockett S. C. on appeal, 2 Ph. 553; 41 E. R. 105 (with note, to which add Hicks v. Ross, 1872, L. R. 14 Eq. 147). [326] ceockett % crockett. Dec. 22, 1846; Jan. 11, 1847. [S. C. on appeal, 2 Ph......
-
Gregg v Kidd
... ... Baseley (1) ... As Lord Cottenham states in Dent v. Bennett (2) :—"The relief ... stands upon a general principle, applying to all variety of relations in which dominion may be exercised by one ... ...
- Louth v Diprose
-
Case Note
...help in clarifying when and why the courts are not so bound, which is the true underlying test. 25Pao On v Lau Yiu Long[1980] AC 614. 26(1839) 41 ER 105. 27 See, for example, Chitty on the Law of Contract (H G Beale gen ed) (Sweet & Maxwell, 30th Ed, 2008) at p 270. 28Dent v Bennett(1839) 4......
-
Reconsidering ‘emotionally transmitted debt’ in Zimbabwe and proposals for the reform of surety law based on English and South African experiences
...292; Bullock v LloydsBank [1955] I Ch 317), medical adviser-patient (Mitchell v Homfrey [1881]8 QB 587; Dent v Bennet (1839) 4 My & Cr 269; 41 ER 105), it is arguedthat these should not be the only overriding associations. In fact[i]nferences should flow from a careful examination of the pa......