Gosling v Gosling
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 June 1855 |
| Date | 25 June 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 61 E.R. 931
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Survivorship. Husband and Wife.
[335] gosling v. gosling. June 25, 1855. Survivorship. Husband and Wife. A., holding a promissory note from B. for a debt, directed B. to transfer it in his books to the names of A- and his wife, expressing an intention to benefit his wife, and he cancelled the note and took a fresh one to him and his wife. A. died, leaving his wife surviving him. Held, that the debt belonged to the wife and did not form part of the testator's general personal estate: The testator in this cause had £600 standing in the hands of Messrs. Seager, secured by their promissory note to him alone. He went to; Messrs. Seager and desired them to transfer the debt in their books to the joint account of himself and his wife, as he wished her to have it after his death ; and he cancelled the promissory note, and took a fresh promissory note to himself and his wife. This was the account given by Mr. Seager of the transaction in his evidence in the cause. The husband died, leaving his wife surviving and his executrix; as such she had treated for a considerable time the debt of £600 as part of her husband's assets; but now she claimed to be entitled to it by survivorship, or as a benefit intended for her by her husband by the transfer of it into their joint names; and this was the question before the Court. : Mr. Torriano, for the Plaintiff. The £600 cannot belong to the wife either by way of survivorship, or by way of separate estate, or of trust: Smith v. Wards (15 Sim. 56). The testator might at any time have called on Seager & Co. to transfer it to him. He [336] kept the debt in his own power at law. The promissory note to the husband and wife was at law only a note to the husband, for he only could have sued upon it. There was no declaration of trust in writing ; and on the death of the husband the note passed to his personal representative as such,: and-not "to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Talbot v Cody
...133. Dummer v. PitcherENR 5 Sim. 35; 2 M. & K. 262. Low v. CarterENR 1 Beav. 526. Vance v. VanceENR 1 Beav. 605. Gosling v. GoslingENR 3 Drew. 335. Staoketon v. StapletonENR 14 Sim. 186. Howard v. OakesENR 3 Exch. 143. Lucas v. LucasENR 1 Atk. 270. Vandenberg v. PalmerENR 4 K. & J. 204. Mew......
-
Clayton v Owen
...Meek v. Kettlewell (1 Hare, 464; 1 Phill. 342); Fldclwr v. Fletcher (4 Hare, 67); Smith v. Ashton (1 Ch. Gas. 264); Gosling v. Gosling (3 Drew. 335); Je/eryx Je/erya (Cr. & Ph. 138); Price v. Eastm (4 Barn. & Ad. 433). Mr. C. M. Roupell, for another creditor. Mr. Cole and Mr. Rigby, for the......
-
Muggeridge v Stanton
...a presumption ; Cook v. Fawntam (3 Swanst. 592); Hughes v. Stubbs (1 Hare, 476); Fletcher v. Fletcher (4 Hare, 67); Gosling v. Gosling (3 Drew. 335); M'Fadden v. Jenkyns (1 Hare, 458); Vanderberg v. fahner (4 K. & J. 204); Dipple v. Carles (11 Hare, 183). The mere investment of these sums o......
-
West v Laing
...any other parties from raising the question -y and if she had filed a bill, they might have taken care to have the decree so framed 3DREWRY.335. GOSLING. .V. GOSLING 931 as to let them in. But Mrs. "West having obtained a decree so limiting the accounts, if the other parties had thought the......