Fletcher v Fletcher
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 November 1788 |
| Date | 27 November 1788 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 30 E.R. 46
IN COURT, MR. J. BULLER, &C., FOR LORD CHANCELLOR.
See Hunt v. Hunt, 1861, 31 Beav. 120.
fletcher versus fletcher. In Court, Mr. J. Butter, &c., for Lord Chancellor. Nov. 25, 27, 1788. [See Hunt v. Hunt, 1861, 31 Beav. 120.] There is no doubt of the general jurisdiction of a Court of Equity to decree the specific performance of articles between husband and wife for a separation and a separate maintenance. But the Court exercises its discretion in this case very cautiously, and will not give its assistance until it has seen whether from the circumstances of the case, there is or is not a probability of the parties being reconciled. A sentence in the Ecclesiastical Court for the restitution of conjugal rites, is a reason for this Court refusing to give its assistance in such a case ; and in general if such an agreement is not fit to be enforced, the Court will, on a cross bill, order it to be delivered up, though there may be cases in which no relief will be given to either party. The original bill in this case was filed by Frances Ann Fletcher wife of Thomas Fletcher, by her next friend, against'her said husband Thomas Fletcher, praying the specific performance of an agreement entered into by the said Thomas Fletcher with his said wife for their living separate from each other, and for an allowance or separate maintenance to be paid by the said Thomas Fletcher for the benefit of his said wife during such separation. And the cross bill was to have the said agreement delivered up to be cancelled, upon the several grounds herein after-mentioned. Mr. Fletcher and his wife were married on the 6th July 1774, and upon that occasion Mr. F. settled landed property of the annual value of 142 on Mrs. F. for her jointure. They continued to live together for ten years without any thoughts of separation, and it was agreed on all hands that the only ground of difference between them was the inclination of Mrs. Fletcher to expence beyond what the circumstances of her husband could afford : and it was the result of the proofs in the cause that she did not at first. believe the representations of Mr. Fletcher when he told her of his inability to support such expences ; but she ascribed it to an unnecessary parsimony. However when he afterwards was explicit with her on the subject she appeared to be fully satisfied that they had lived at too great an expence. His income appeared to be rather more [100] than 300 a year, .and they had for the first ten years of their marriage exceeded that income by about 100 per annum on an average. In the beginning of the year 1784 Mr. Fletcher came to a determination of altering his mode of living, and taking a smaller house than his own in which he lived, and of reducing the number of his servants; and in the month of January 1784, he wrote to Mrs. Graves, the mother of his wife, a letter informing her of his intentions. The plan proposed for retrenching their expenses was carried into execution, but it appeared not to answer the purpose sufficiently, and Mr. Fletcher continued to complain of his wife's extravagance, and there was some evidence in the cause on the part of Mr. Fletcher to this effect. In September 1784, Mr. F. first proposed a separation, and he wrote to Mrs. F.'s mother a letter in which he proposes to make void the settlement made on the marriage, and to pay her a certain sum annually during her life, the quantum of which he offered to leave to the determination of Mrs. Graves, considering the amount of his whole income. This proposal induced the two brothers of Mrs. F. and a Mr. Kirkham (a friend of the family), to go to Mr. F. for the purpose of settling the terms of such intended separation ; and in the month of October following the agreement was made, which was the subject of the present suit. The agreement was dated 19th October, and it was thereby agreed, " that " during the separation that was intended to take place between Mr. and Mrs. Fletcher, " he would pay her or her certain attorney or order the sum of 110 per annum, at " four quarterly payments, &c., and that he would give such security for the regular " payment thereof as should be thought...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John Wright Henniker Wilson, Esq., - Appellant; Mary Wright Henniker Wilson (the Appellant's Wife) and Others, - Respondents
...the separation by voluntary reconciliation, or decree of restitution of conjugal rights ; Head v. Head (3 Atk. 547), Fletcher v. Fletcher (2 Cox, 99). The present case does not fall within any of these classes. The next objection to these articles is, that as they contain no covenant to ind......
-
Hunt v Hunt
...(2 De G. & J. 249; S. C. 4 Jur. (N. S.) 519); Worrall v. Jacob (3 Mer. 268); Frampton v. Fmmpton (4 Beav. 287, 293); Fletcher v. Fletcher (2 Cox, 99); and 20 & 21 Viet. c. 85 (sects. 7, 17). the lord chancellor. I do not mean on the present occasion finally to dispose of this application; b......
-
Crouch v Waller
...copyhold portion of the property. They referred to Walrond v. Walrond (John. 18); Sidney v. Sidney (3 P. Wins. 269); Fletcher v. Fletcher (2 Cox, 99) ; Morningtmi v. Keane (2 De G. & J. 292); Je/erys v. Jefferys (Cr. & Ph. 138). Mr. H. K. Bagshawe and Mr. Koche, for the trustees. Mr. Cole, ......
-
The Most Honourable George Thomas John, Marquess of Westmeath, - Appellant; The Most Honourable James William Brownlow Cecil, Marquess of Salisbury; Henry Widman Wood, Esquire; the Honourable and Reverend Gerald Valerian Wellesley; William Sheldon, Esquire; the Most Honourable Emily Anne Bennet Elizabeth, Marchioness of Westmeath; and Lady Rosa Nugent, - Respondents
...the future, and with respect to the past, separation. It will be in your Lordships' recollection, that, in the caso of Fletcher v. Fletcher [2 Cox, 99], the coming together again, I think, did not last above sixteen or seventeen days ; but it put an end to the whole of the deed, and those p......