Dyer v Dyer
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 November 1788 |
| Date | 27 November 1788 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 30 E.R. 42
IN THE EXCHEQUER, L. C. BARON, B. HOTHAM, B. THOMPSON.
S. C. 2 Wh. T. L. C. 7th ed. 803. See Sayre v. Hughes, 1868, L. R. 5 Eq. 381; Crow v. Pettingill, 1869, 38 L. J. Ch. 193. Distinguished, In re Whitehouse, Whitehouse v. Edwards, 1887, 37 Ch. D. 683. See In re a policy of the Scottish Equitable Life Assurance Society, [1902] 1 Ch. 284.
[921 dyer versus dyek. In the Exchequer, L. G. Baron, B. Hotham, B. Thompson. Nov. 20, 21, and 27, 1788. [S. 6. 2 Wh. T. L. C. 7th ed. 803. See Sayre v. Hughes, 1868, L. R. 5 Eq. 381 ; Crow v. Pettingill, 1869, 38 L. J. Ch. 193. Distinguished, In re Whitehouse, Whitehouse ò v. Edwards, 1887, 37 Ch. D. 683. See In re a policy of the Scottish Equitable Life Assurance Society, [1902] 1 Ch. 284.] Advancement. Copyhold granted to A. and B. his wife, and C. his younger son, to . take in succession for their lives and the life of the survivors. The purchase money was all paid by A. C. is not a trustee of his life interest for A., but takes it beneficially as an advancement from his father. Resulting trust. In 1737 certain copyhold premises holden of the manor of Heytesbury, in the county of Wilts, were granted by the lord, according to the custom of that manor, to Simon 2 COX, 93. DYER V. DYER 43 Dyer (the plaintiff's father), and Mary his wife, and the defendant William (his other son) to take in succession for their lives, and to the longest liver of them. The purchase money was paid by Simon Dyer the father. He survived his wife and lived until 1785, and then died, having made his will, and thereby devised all his interest in these copyhold premises (amongst others) to the plaintiff, his younger son. The present bill stated these circumstances, and insisted that the whole purchase money being paid by the father, although, by the form of the grant, the wife and the defendant had the legal interest in the premises for their lives in succession, yet in a court of equity they were but trustees for the father, and the bill therefore prayed that the plaintiff, as devisee of the father, might be quieted in the possession of the premises during the life of the defendant. The defendant insisted that the insertion of his name in the grant operated as an advancement to him from his father to the extent of the legal interest thereby given to him. And this was the whole question in the cause. This case was very fully argued by Mr. Solicitor General and Ainge for the plaintiff, and by Burton and Morris for the defendant. The following cases were cited, and very particularly commented on. Smith v. Baker, 1 Atk. 385. Taylor v. Taylor, 1 Atk. 386. Mumma v. Mumma, 2 Vern. 19. Howe v. Howe, 1 Vern. 415. Anon. 2 Freem. 123. Benger v. Drew, 1 P. W. 781. Dickenson v. Shaw, before the Lords Commissioners in 1770. Bedwell v. Froome before Sir T. Sewell, on the 10th May 1778. Bow v. Bawden before Sir L. Kenyon, sitting for the Lord Chancellor. Crispe v. Pratt, Gro. Car. 548. Scroope v. Scroope, 1 Cha. Co,. 27. Elliot v. Elliot, 2 Cha. Ca. 231. [93] Ebrand v. Dancer, 2 Cha. Ca. 26. Kingdome v. Bridges, 2 Vern. 67. Back v. Andrews, 2 Vern. 120. Bundle v. Bundle, 2 Vern. 264. Lamplugh v. Lamplugh, 1 P. W. 111. Stileman v. Ashdown, 2 Atk. 430. Pole v. Pole, 1 Ves. 76. Lord Chief Baron \Eyre], after directing the cause to stand over for a few days, delivered the judgment of the Court. The question between the parties in this cause is, whether the defendant is to be considered as a trustee for his father in respect of his succession to the legal interest of the copyhold premises in question, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Liew Choy Hung v Fork Kian Seng
-
Goodman v Carlton
...the property and, if more than one person is identified as having done so, by ascertaining the respective amounts provided. As held in Dyer v. Dyer (1788) 2 Cox 92 at p. 93, "the trust of a legal estate results to the man who advances the purchase-money…It is the established doctrine of a C......
-
Catherine Victoria Simmons v Madge Olivene Wright Executor Estate Gwendolyn Miranda Simmons et Al
...on trust for the person who has paid the purchase money. The classic statement of the law is to be found in the Judgement of Eyre C.B. in Dyer v Dyer (1788) 2 Cox Eq. Cas. 92; 'The clear result of all the cases, without a single exception, is that the trust of a legal estate, whether freeho......
- Abdul Sameed and Another; Mohamed Kunju
-
Table of Cases
...83–89, 97, 98, 101 Dunlop v Lambert (1839) 6 Cl & F 600, 7 ER 824 100, 104 Dyer v Dyer (1788) 2 Cox Eq Cas 92, [1775–1802] All ER Rep 205, 30 ER 42 223 Table of Cases xxv El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings plc [1994] 2 All ER 685, [1994] BCC 143, [1994] 1 BCLC 464, CA 180 El Sombrero Ltd, Re [1......
-
Table of Cases
...142 Dyck v Shingle Estate, 1984 ABCA 185, 54 AR 382 ...........................................201 Dyer v Dyer (1788), 2 Cox 92, 30 ER 42............................................................... 87 Earl Putnam Organization Ltd v Macdonald (1978), 91 DLR (3d) 714, 21 OR (2d) 815 (CA) .......
-
THE (QUISTCLOSE) RESULTING TRUST AS A PROPRIETARY RESPONSE TO UNJUST ENRICHMENT
...and Verification: The Numerus Clausus Problem and the Divisibility of Rights”(2002) 31(S2) J Legal Stud S373 at S384. 135Dyer v Dyer(1788) 2 Cox 92 at 93. 136[1991] 2 AC 548. 137 See See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd[2013] 3 SLR 284 at [35] and [123]. 138 See A Burrows, The......
-
Co-Ownership
...Estate , [1988] 1 WWR 534 at 539, 49 Man R (2d) 317 (CA). 11 Lake v Gibson (1729), 1 Eq Cas Abr 290, 21 ER 1052. 12 (1788) 2 Cox 92 at 93, 30 ER 42. THE LAW OF PROPERTY 88 The presumption of resulting trust has weakened over time and can now be rebutted fairly easily by circumstantial evide......