Drew v Martin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 March 1864 |
| Date | 01 March 1864 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 71 E.R. 411
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
S. C. 33 L. J. Ch. 367; 10 L. T. 291; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 356; 12 W. R. 547; 3 N. R. 637. Distinguished, In re Whitehouse, 1887, 37 Ch. D. 683.
Husband and Wife. Vendor and Purchaser. Joint Purchase. Advancement.
[130] drew v. martin. Feb. 19, March 1, 1864. [S. C. 33 L. J. Ch. 367 ; 10 L. T. 291; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 356; 12 W. R. 547 ; 3 N. R. 637. Distinguished, In re Whitehouse, 1887, 37 Ch. 1). 683.] Husband and Wife,. Vendor and Purchaser. Joint Purchase. Advancement. An agreement for the purchase of land was entered into in the names of husband and wife, and the husband died before the whole of the purchase-money had been paid. Upon an inquiry in an administration suit as to the real property of the husband : Held, that it did not include the purchased estate, that the purchase enured for the benefit of the widow, and that the unpaid purchase-money was payable out of the husband's personal estate. A purchase by way of advancement is not within the 27th Eliz. c. 4, and, senile, not within 13 Eliz. c. 5. In this case a decree had been made for the administration of the real and personal estate of Thomas Martin, who died in 1862 intestate as to real estate. [n the year L859 an agreement was entered into in the names of tlie testator and his wife for the purchase of certain freehold land from a land company, the price to be paid by instalments. The agreement was on a printed form, and the stipulations for conveyance, payment of [131] instalments and the like were expressed throughout in the singular number (as regards the purchaser), except that the commencement was altered in ink into the form: " We, the undersigned Thomas Martin and Louisa Martin, agree to purchase," and that the agreement was signed by both. .Some of the instalments had been paid in the testator's lifetime, but others had not then fallen due. The widow insisted that the purchase was intended to enure for her benefit after the testator's death, and that the remaining instalments ought to be paid out of his general personal estate. The heir at law insisted that the purchase was for the testator himself, and claimed the premises by descent. The question was adjourned from Chambers into Court. Mr. Pemberton, for the widow. The agreement is in the joint names of husband and wife, and the occasional use of a singular pronoun in the printed form is clearly accidental. The purchase, therefore, is an advancement for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial