Frampton v Frampton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1841 |
| Date | 01 January 1841 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 49 E.R. 349
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 5 Jur. 980.
[287] frampton v. frampton. April 22, 23, July 30, 1841. [S. C. 5 Jur. 980.] A deed of separation between husband and wife, containing no covenant on the part of a trustee to indemnify the husband, or other valuable consideration, is not on that account void. On the separation between a husband and wife, the former by deed made between himself, his wife, and trustees, assigned the dividends of some funds standing in the names of trustees to other trustees, for the benefit of the wife, and he covenanted that she might live apart from him, &c.; and the wife agreed to accept the provision in lieu of alimony, dower, &c.; and to exonerate her husband from all her debts, and to forfeit her rights under the deed if she violated the agreement. The deed contained no covenant on the part of the trustees, and was supported by no further consideration. Held, that the deed was not invalid, and that the wife was entitled to the provision made for her by the deed. This bill was filed by Elizabeth Frampton, praying to have the benefit of a deed, dated the 16th day of August 1824, executed by her late husband, James A. Frampton on the occasion of a separation between them. The bill was filed against William H. Frampton, the legal personal representatives of James A. Frampton, and the surviving trustee of the deed. The facts were as follows :- The Plaintiff, before her marriage with the late Mr. Frampton, was entitled under the will of Win. White to a sum of 19,000 3 per cent, consols, and to a sum of 1000 East India stock, which were standing in the names of John Edmondson and Wm. Calvart, on trust to pay the dividends to her for life, with remainder to her issue. She had sold out the sum of 1900, part of the 19,000 3 per cent, consols, for a specific purpose, and the retransfer of it was secured to Edmondson and Calvert, by a policy of insurance on her life for 1500. Before her marriage the Plaintiff, by deed dated the 16th of October 1816, assigned her interests in the stocks to Mr."Frampton,?her intended husband ; and in a few days after the marriage, viz., on the 22d October 1816, Mr. Frampton executed a deed-poll, whereby it was purported, that he covenanted with Edmondson and Calvert, that if he should die in the lifetime of the Plaintiff, and there should be failure of issue, 350 FRAMPTON V. FRAMPTON 4 BEAV. 288. Edmondson and [288] Calvert should atand possessed of the stocks, on trust for the Plaintiff for her life; and after her death, on trust for her executors, administrators, and assigns. Differences having afterwards arisen between Mr. and Mrs. Frampton, they agreed to live separate from each other; and they executed an indenture dated 16th August 1824, and Edmondson the trustee being dead, the indenture was made between Mr. Frampton the husband of the first part; the Plaintiff, Mrs. Frampton, of the second part; James Marshall, and the Defendant William Frampton, of the third part; and Wm. Calvert of the fourth part. And, thereby, Mr. and Mrs. Frampton assigned to Marshall and the Defendant, the dividends of the stocks then standing in the names of Edmondson and Calvert, and also the dividends to arise on the 1900, if the same should be retransferred in the lifetime of Mrs. Frampton, subject to the annual premium of 47, lls. 3d., payable on the policy for 1500 ; to hold and receive the same on trust during the joint lives of Mr. and Mrs. Frampton, to pay to Mrs. Frampton the annual sum of 300; and to invest the surplus in the purchase of stock, in the names of Marshall and the Defendant, and accumulate the same, and stand possessed of the accumulations, on trust to pay the interest thereof to Mrs. Frampton, in addition to her annuity of 300; and if Mr. Frampton should die in her lifetime, on trust to transfer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heath v Wickham
...v. VansittartENR 4 K. & J. 62; 2 De G. & Jo. 249. Besant v. Wood 12 Ch. Div. 605. 622. Bath's Case 8 Ch. Div. 334. Frampton v. FramptonENR 4 Beav. 287. Callisher v. BischoffsheimELR L. R. 5 Q. B. 449. Bateman v. Lady RossENR 1 Dow P. C. 235. Nicholl v. JonesELR L. R. 3 Eq. 696, 709. Barrow ......
-
John Wright Henniker Wilson, Esq., - Appellant; Mary Wright Henniker Wilson (the Appellant's Wife) and Others, - Respondents
...Innell v. Newman (4 Barn, and Aid. 419), Boss v. Willoughby (10 Price, 22), Wilson v. Mushett (3 Barn, and Ad. 743), Frampton v. Frampton (4 Beav. 287), Hindley v. Westmeath (6 Barn, and Cr. 200). The objection ill becomes the appellant, who admits that he sets no value on such a covenant, ......
-
Hunt v Hunt
...M. & G. 328); Vamsittart v. Fansittari (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 fi......
-
Proctor v Robinson
...(7 Price, 577); Gocksedge v. Cocksedge (14 Sim. 244). Mr. Southgate and Mr. Villiers, for the Defendant, cited Frampton v. Frampton (4 Beav. 287). Mr. Selwyn, in reply. Feb. 14. the mastek of the rolls [Lord Romilly]. This is a suit to set aside a deed executed by the Plaintiff, on the grou......