Foden v Finney
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 May 1828 |
| Date | 05 May 1828 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 38 E.R. 866
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Held overruled, In re Cutler, 1851, 14 Beav. 220.
[428] foden v. fcnney. Rolls. April 24, May 5, 1828. [Held overruled, In re Cutler, 1851, 14 Beav. 220.] Money in Court, belonging to a married woman, if less than 200, will be ordered to be paid to the husband, though she has been deserted by him and opposes the petition. A petition was presented in the name of Thomas Foden and Charlotte his wife, praying that the sum of 84, 8s. 9d., three per cent, stock, which was the wife's share of a fund in court, might be transferred to the husband. Mr. Girdlestone, junr., for the petition. Mr. Wakefield stated, that he appeared for the wife to oppose the petition. Her husband had deserted her, and, for ten years, had not contributed any thing to her support : her name had been used in the petition without her permission ; and, far from concurring in the application, she was anxious to prevent any part of the money from coming into the hands of her husband. In reply, it was said, that, the sum being under 200, the consent of the wife was not requisite. The fund was, at law, the property of the husband; and this Court never created an equity in favour of the wife, except where the sum amounted to 200 or upwards. The petition stood over, in order that it might be ascertained whether there were any authorities on the subject. On a subsequent day Mr. Wakefield referred to Elsworthy v. Wickstead (1 Jac. & Walk. 69), where, the petition being in the [429] name of the husband and wife, the trustees suggested that the wife, did not concur in it ; and Sir Thomas Plummer made the order, expressly on the ground that he must presume the petition to bo presented with the concurrence of the wife, unless the contrary were proved. That seemed to imply, that, if it had been proved that the wife did not concur, the Court would not have made the order : and here it is an admitted fact, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncombe v Greenacre
...390 ; Elliott v. Cordell, 5 Madd. 149 ; Elwarlhy v. Wick-stead, 1 Jac. & W. 69 ; Erskine's Trust, In re, 1 Kay & J. 302 ; Foden v. Finney, 4 Russ. 428; Francis v. Brooking, 19 Beav. 347; Gardner v. Marshall, 14 Sim. 575; Gent v. Harris, 10 Hare, 383; Gilclumt v. Color, 1 De Gex & Sm. 188; G......
-
Re Cutler
...He had taken the benefit of the Insolvent Act. The Court held that his assignees were entitled to no part of the fund. Foclen v. Firnney, 4 Russ. 428, is considered not binding. A sum of -140 was in Court, which belonged to Mr. Halliday in right of his wife, Elizabeth Halliday. Mr. Halliday......
-
Re 10 & 11 Vict c. 96. The Trustees' Relief Act, and Kincaid's Trusts
...husband, without the wife appearing to consent; but qn the express ground that the wife was presumed to have concurred, Fodenv^ Finney (4 Russ, 428) is the other way; but the report is too meagre to be. relied on. In re Cutler (14 Beav."220) Sir John Komily, M.E., overruled the latter case ......
-
Bailey v Dennett
...was filed on the assumption that the wife could not be interested in this legacy; but, whether interested in it or not, Foden v. Finney (4 Russell, 428), is an authority to shew that, the amount being under 2001, *Y. AC EX. 0. BAILEY V. DENNETT 783 the Court will not exercise any equity in ......