Dickenson v Wright
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 1860 |
| Date | 11 February 1860 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 1237
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C. 29 L J. Ex 150, 8 W R. 419, 2 L T. 155. Affirmed nominee Clarke v Wright, 1861, 6 H. & N. 849
digkenson v. wright Feb 11, 1860-D., a widow, being possessed of certain real property, by settlement in contemplation of her marriage, dated the 17th of May, 1830, reciting that, upon the treaty for the maniage, it was agreed that the property should be appointed, released and conveyed as thereinafter mentioned, limited the property to trustees in trust for herself for life, with remainder, as to part, to her husband for lite, lemainder to the use of her illegitimate son, the plaintiff. She and hei husband subsequently mortgaged the property. In ejectment by the plaintiff against a person claiming title under the mortgagee, it was proved that, in October, 1830, the husband and wite let the property to T., and received the rents of it for some years. Held . First, that the limitation m the marriage settlement to the plaintiff, though a bastard, was not fraudulent and void against the mortgagee, by the 27 Eliz c 4 Secondly, that there was evidence of the seisin of L) at the time of the execution of the settlement [S C. 29 L J. Ex 150, 8 W R. 419, 2 L T. 155. Affirmed nomine Claile v WivjU, 1861, 6 H. & N. 849 ] This was an action of ejectment brought by one William Thomas Dickenson to recover possession of a dwelling house and land called Ludgates, at East Bndgford [402] At the trial, before Williams, J., at the last Summer Assizes at Nottingham, it appeared that the plaintiff was the illegitimate son of Mary Dickenson by (a,) In Michaelmas Term (November 18), Monk, on behalf of the defendants Bayes and Pennmgton, applied for a lule calling on their co defendant Harrison to produce the warrant of distress, which was given in evidence at the trial, on the argument of the rule to enter a verdict for them He referred to the 46th section of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, which enacts that, "upon the hearing of any motion or summons, it shall be lawful for the Court or Judge, at then or his discretion, and upon such terms as they or he shall think reasonable, from time to time, to order such documents as they or he may think fit to be produced." [Pollock, C. B, As against the opposite party, we often order documents to be produced without any rule. If after such order the party were to omit to produce them we should stay the proceedings. In the present case the application is peifectly regular, but we think that there is no necessity for any rule. The Court directs that the document shall be produced. If the defendant Harrison obeys the direction, no expense will be incurred. If he disobeys it, the Court will know how to deal with the matter, and the expense will fall upon him.j 1238 DICKENSON V. WRIGHT 5 H & N 403 W. T. Dickenson, her husband, having been born before the mai n.ige of his mother. After the death of W. T. Dickenson, Maiy Dicken&on married one Willum Doncaster , and by indenture dated the 17th of May, 1830, a settlement was made previous to and in contemplation of the said marriage, between Maiy Dickenson of the first part, W. Doneaster of the second part, and T. Wakefield and T. Agar of the third pait, reciting certain indentures of lease and release dated the 23th and 26th of April, 1830, whereby the property (which had been mortgaged) was leconveyed to Mary Dickenson, then being the widow of W T Dickenson, hei heirs and assigns, to the use of such person or persons and for such estate and interest as she should by deed or will appoint, and in default of appointment to the use of Maiy Dickenson, her heirs and assigns, for ever- also reciting that a marriage had been agieerl upon, and wee shortly intended to be solemnized, between William Doncaster and Mary Dickenson, and that upon the treaty of the said intended marriage it was agreed that the said messuage, land and hereditaments should be appointed, released and conveyed, &c , as thereinafter mentioned . It was " witnessed that, in pursuance of and for effectuating the said agreement, and for and in consideration of the said intended marnage, and for settling the lands and hereditaments therein described to the uses and upon the trusts and for the intents and purposes and in manner therein mentioned, and in consideration of the sum of 10s . paid to Mary Dickenson, G T Wakefield and T. Agar, she the said Mary Dickenson, with the consent and approbation of the said William Doncaster testified by his being made party to and executing the said indentuie, and in pursuance [403] of the po\ver and authonty given to her by the recited iridentuie, and of every other power to her given, &c , hath irrevocably directed, limited and appointed, and by the said deed doth irrevocably direct, limit and appoint, that the messuage &c. shall henceforth tenum, continue and be to and for the uses, trusts, intents and purposes, and under and subject to the powers and pio\ision& therein declared concerning the same. And further that, in consideration of 5s to Mary Dickenson paid by T. Wakefield and T Agat, the sard Mary Dickenson, with the consent and approbation of the said William Doncaster testified as aforesaid, hath granted, bargained, sold, aliened, released and confirmed, and by the said indenture doth grant, bargain, sell, alien, lelease and confirm, to T Wakeheld and T Agai all that messuage, &c , and also a piece of land containing 1 a 2 r To have and to hold the said messuage, &c. and piece of land unto the sard T Wakefield and T. Agar, their heirs and assigns, to the use of the said Mary Dickenson, her hens and assigns, until the solemnization of the said intended mainage, arid after the solemnization thereof to the use of T Wakefield and T. Agar, their heirs &c , during the life of the said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lynch v Lynch
...204. Prichard v. Prichar 1 Turner & Rus. 222. Inglefield v. CoghlanENR 2 Coll. 247. Buckle v Mitchell 18 Ves. 100. Dickenson v. WrightENR 5 H. & N. 401. Bayspoole v. Collins 6 Ch. App. 228. Ford v. StuartENR 15 Beav. 493. Newstead v. SearlesENR 1 Atk. 265. Roe v. Mitton 2 Wilson, 356. Parke......
-
Patrick Mullins v Guilfoyle
...290. Persse v. Persse 7 Cl. & F. 279. Thompson v. Webster 4 De G. & Jones, 600. Ford v. StuartENR 15 Beav. 493. Dickenson v. WrightENR 5 H. & N. 401. Townsend v. TokerELR L. R. 1 Ch. App. 446. Bayspoole v. CollinsELR L. R. 6 Ch. App. 228. Teasdale v. Braithwaite L. R. 5 Ch. Div. 630. Price ......
-
Clarke and Others, Representatives of Dickenson, Deceased v Wright
...of the settlement which was afterwards pat in by the defendant In other respects the facts of the case fully appear in the report, 5 H. & N 401. W. T Dickenson, the plaintiff, having died since the trial, the above mentioned claimants were made parties by suggestion. Mellor (Field with, him......
-
Re Ramsay's Settlement
...(1 Atk. 265); Roe v. Miiton (2 Wil. 356) ; and this doctrine has recently been extended to natural children ; Dickenxim v. W-i-ujht (5 Hurl. & Nor. 401); Clarke v. Wright (30 L. J. (Exch.) 113). the attorney-general (Sir R. Bethell) and Mr. Hanson, for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. S......