Dickinson v Burrell; Stourton v Burrell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 January 1866 |
| Date | 25 January 1866 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 894
ROLLS COURT
S. C. L. R. 1 Eq. 337; 35 L. J. Ch. 371; 12 Jur. (N. S.) 199; 14 W. R. 412.
[257] dickinson ò. burrell. Jan. 22, 25, 1866. [S. C. L. R. 1 Eq. 337 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 371; 12 Jur. (N. S.) 199; 14 W. R. 412.] Distinction between selling a mere right to set aside a fraudulent conveyance, and selling the property itself after such a conveyance. In the first case, the purchaser cannot sue to set aside the conveyance, but in the latter he can. In 1860 A. B. sold and conveyed some property to C. D. Afterwards, in 1864, A. B., by a deed reciting that the deed of 1860 was invalid, voluntarily conveyed the same property to trustees for himself for life, with remainder to his children. Held, that the infant children of A. B. could maintain a suit, as sole Plaintiffs, to set aside the deed of 1860 ; the right to sue being incidental to the property conveyed. The construction of and the rights and incidents under a voluntary deed, if bond fide and valid, are the same as of a deed for value. This was a demurrer, on the ground that the Plaintiffs had no right to institute this suit. The case made by the bill was shortly this :-James Dickinson was entitled to an undivided share (five-eighths) in the estate of John Whitehead, deceased.(l) In (1) Some of the facts relating to the title will be found stated in Ibbott v. Bell, 34 Beav. 396, and Dickinson v. Stidolph, 11 C. B. Rep. (N. S.) 341. 35 BEAV. 2M. DICKINSON V. BURRELL 895 December 1860 he sold and conveyed one-half of his share (five-sixteenths) to the Defendant John Edens, in consideration of £100. Afterwards, by a decree, pronounced on the 22d of March 1862, which declared the rights of the parties to the fund in Court, five-sixteenths were declared to belong to Edens. [258] In April 1864 James Dickinson, by a voluntary deed executed by him, reciting the conveyance to Edens and disputing its validity, conveyed his share, so sold to Edena, to two trustees, Slatford and Fischer, in trust to sell and stand possessed of the produce upon trust-first, to pay the costs ; secondly, to pay £200 to James Dickinson; and, thirdly, to invest the residue and pay the interest of it to James Dickinson for life, and after his death, to divide it amongst his children as he should appoint, and in default equally. James Dickinson had eight children, and five of them, who were infants, filed this bill against Burrell (who had been their father's solicitor), Edens (the purchaser), their father James Dickinson, his three adult children, and the trustees of the voluntary settlement of 1864. In it they alleged that the sale and conveyance of December 1860 to Edens was obtained by fraud; that, in truth, it was a purchase by Mr. Burrell, who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Camdex International Ltd v Bank of Zambia
... ... In Dickenson v Burrell LR 1 Eq 337 the transferee of certain property was held entitled to sue ... may be incapable of being recovered without litigation: see Dickinson v Burrell (1865) L.R.1 Eq. 337 ." ... 59 I ... ...
-
Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Ltd v Fostif Pty Ltd
... ... Prosser v Edmonds (1835) 1 Y & C Ex 481 [ 160 ER 196 ] and Dickinson v Burrell (1866) LR 1 Eq 337 ... 74 Reynell v Sprye (1852) 1 De G M ... ...
- Bird v Perpetual Executors and Trustees Association of Australia Ltd
-
Ker v Ker
...Ves. 656. Ward v. AudlandENR 8 Beav. 201. Tweddell v. Tweddell 2 B. C. c. 100. Evelyn v. EvelynENR 2 P. Wms. 663. Dickenson v. BurrellENR 35 BEav. 257, 263. Clavering v. ClaveringENR 2 Vern. 473. Goodwin v. Goodwin 1 Ch. Rep. 92. Stock v. AylwardUNK 8 Ir. Ch. Rep. 429. King v. JonesENR 5 Ta......