Edwards v Jones
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 January 1836 |
| Date | 23 January 1836 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 40 E.R. 361
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 5 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 194. See Beatson v. Beatson, 1841, 12 Sim. 295; Meek v. Kettlewell, 1843, 1 Ph. 348; Kekewich v. Manning, 1851, 1 De G. M. & G. 194; Bridge v. Bridge, 1852, 16 Beav. 323; Voyle v. Hughes, 1854, 2 Sm. & G. 29; Donaldson v. Donaldson, 1854, Kay, 720; Moore v. Moore, 1874, L. R. 18 Eq. 483; In re Richardson, 1885, 30 Ch. D. 401; Re Shield, 1885, 53 L. T. 8. See also Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Viet. c. 66), s. 25(6).
, \ vtt ò r r, f IQAV.WN. S%^ ò edwards v. jones. Jan. 6, 19, 23, [1836]. [S. C. 5 L. J. Ch. (N. Si.), 194. See Beatsm v. Beafson, 1841, 12 Sim. 295 ; Meek v. Kettlewell, 1843, 1 Ph. 348; Keknvich v. Manning, 1851, 1 De G. M. & G. 194; Bridge v. Bridge, 1852, 16 Beav. 323; Voyle v. Hughes, 1854, 2 Sm. & G. 29; Donaldson v. Donaldson, 1854, Kay, 720; Moore v. Moore, 1874, L. R. 18 Eq. 483; In re Richardson, 1885, 30 Ch. D. 401 ; Re Shield, 1885, 53 L. T. 8. See also Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Viet. c. 66), s. 25(6).] The obligee of a bond, five days before her death, signed a memorandum, not under seal, which was indorsed upon the bond, and which purported to be an assignment of the bond, without consideration, to a person to whom the bond was at the same time delivered. The circumstances of the transaction did not constitute, in the opinion of the Court, a donatio mortis causd. Held, that the gift was incomplete; and that, as it was without consideration, the Court could not give effect to it. In the year 1819 John Nathaniel Williams, being indebted to Mary Custance in the sum of £300, gave her a bond for securing that sum, with interest. In the year 1828 the said sum of £300 being still due, together with an arrear of interest, amounting to the sum of £123, 15s., a second bond was given by J. N. Williams to Mary Custance, for securing the latter sum, with interest thereon. The whole of the two sums of £300 and £123, 15s. remained due, upon the security of the two bonds, at the time of the death of Mary Custance. On the 25th of May 1830, only five days before her death, Mary Custance signed the following indorsement upon the bond of 1819 :-" I, Mary Cuatance, of the town of Aberystwith, in the county of Cardigan, widow, do hereby assign and transfer the within bond or obligation, and all my right, title, and interest thereto, unto and to the use of my niece, Esther Edwards, of Llanilar, in the said county of Cardigan, widow, with full power and authority for the said Esther Edwards to sue for and recover the amount thereof, and all interest now due or hereafter to become due thereon : as witness my hand, this 25th of May 1830." [227] The bond of 1828 was usually kept with the bond of 1819. At the time at C. xx.-12* 362 EDWARDS V. JONES 1 MT. & CR. 228. which the indorsement was signed the two bonds were fastened together by a pin. Immediately after the indorsement had been signed, Mary Custance delivered, or caused to be delivered, both the bonds to Esther Edwards, the Plaintiff in this suit. The bonds remained in the hands of the Plaintiff until the filing of the bill. Mary Custance died on the 30th of May 1830, having in the year 1829 made her will, in which she did not mention the bonds, or dispose of the residue of her property, but by which she appointed the Defendant Rice Jones her executor, who duly proved the will. After Mary Cuatance's death, the Defendant, who had been aware in her'life-time of the existence of the bonda, auppoaing that they had been lost, prevailed upon J. N. Williams, the obligor, to execute a new bond for the amount due upon the two old bonds, and at the same time gave to the obligor a bond of indemnity aganist any claim which might be made upon the old bonds. In the month of January 1832 J. N. Williams, the obligor, died, and afterwards hia widow and executrix paid to the Defendant the amount for which the new bond had been given. The bill stated that the Plaintiff was a niece of Mary Custance, and that Mary Custance had a great affection for the Plaintiff, and entertained, and at different times expressed, an intention to give or leave to the Plaintiff the bonds and the money due upon them. It alleged that Mary Custance delivered, or caused to be delivered, to the Plaintiff both the bonda, intending that the Plaintiff should be entitled thereto, and to the monies respectively secured thereby, in case of and after the [228] decease of her, the said Mary Custance, and expressing herself to that or the like effect; and the bill also alleged that the bonds, and the money due upon the same, were well given to the Plaintiff by Mary Custance, as a gift, or as donatio mortis causa, and that the Plaintiff became entitled thereto. The bill then went on to allege that, under the circumstances, the Plaintiff was entitled to the sum due on the bonds, and that the Defendant, so far as he had a legal right of action upon them, was a trustee for the Plaintiff, and that he was a trustee for the Plaintiff for the money received by him from the executrix of the obligor. The prayer of the bill was that it might be declared that the Plaintiff was and is entitled to the principal and interest which was due upon the two bonds, and that the Defendant might be declared to be a trustee thereof for the Plaintiff, and that an account might be taken of what had been received by the Defendant in respect of the several sums secured by the bonds, and the interest thereof respectively; and that the Defendant might...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Clarke
-
Gason v Rich
...Donaldson v. DonaldsonENR Kay, 711. Milroy v. LordENR 4 De G. F. & J. 264. Richards v. DelbridgeELR L. R. 18 Eq. 11. Edwards v. JonesENR 1 My. & Cr. 226. In re King; Sewell v. King 14 Ch. Div. 179. Bridge v. BridgeENR 16 Beav. 322. Gilbert v. OvertonENR 2 H. & M. 110. Lambe v. OrtonENR 1 Dr......
-
Lee v Magrath
...Penfold v. MouldELR L. R. 4 Eq. 562. Kekewich v. ManningENR 1 De G. M. & G. 176. Murray v. Glasse 23 L. J. Ch. 126. Edwards v. JonesENR 1 My. & Cr. 226. Moore v. Ulster BankUNKIR I. R. 11 C. L. 512. Richards v. DelbridgeELR L. R. 18 Eq. 11. Blakely v. BradyUNK 2 Dr. & Wal. 311. Schroeder v.......
-
Koh Cheong Heng v Ho Yee Fong
...... (Footnotes omitted) . . . . I would add that, as noted by Lord Cowper LC. in Jones v Selby (1710) Prec Ch 300 at. 303, 24 ER 143 at 144, donatio mortis. causa is “a gift in. ... revokes the gift before his death ( Sparkes at p. 39, citing Edwards v Jones (1836) 1 My &. Cr 226 at 234, where Cottenham LC noted that a purported outright gift. cannot be a ......