Harvey v Farquhar
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 February 1872 |
| Docket Number | No. 192,No. 3 |
| Date | 22 February 1872 |
| Court | House of Lords |
Ld. Chancellor (Hatherley).
Ld. Chelmsford.
Ld. Westbury.
Husband and Wife—Divorce—Donatio propter nuptias—Provisions.—
(IN the Court of Session, July 12, 1870, ante, vol. viii. p. 971.)
This was an action by William Harvey, who had been divorced by his wife on the ground of adultery, against Arthur Farquhar, his sole surviving marriage-contract trustee, for exhibition of the accounts, and count, reckoning, and payment as to the interest of the marriage-contract funds.
The facts were these :—By antenuptial contract of marriage, dated in 1842, between the pursuer and Miss Hunter, with consent of her father, the pursuer bound himself to pay to certain trustees the sum of £4000, and Miss Hunter disponed and assigned to the trustees the whole sums of money and estate to which she should become entitled in virtue of two bonds of provision which her father bound himself to execute in favour of his younger children,—the one over his entailed, and the other over his fee-simple estates.
The objects of the trust were:—‘(Third), During the joint lives of the said William Harvey and Rachel Hunter, the said trustees shall pay the interest or annual proceeds of the trust-funds received by them to the said William Harvey for the maintenance and support of himself and his spouse and family, after deduction always of all expenses and disbursements incurred by said trustees in the matters of this trust. (Fourth), On the dissolution of the marriage by the death of either of the contracting parties, in the event of there being children of the marriage alive at that time, the trustees are to pay the interest or annual proceeds of the whole trust-funds to the survivor of the contracting parties, during all the days of his or her life, and after the death of such survivor the trustees are to pay the principal sums to the children of the marriage equally among them, share and share alike, as they attain the age of majority…. (Fifth), That on the dissolution of the marriage by the decease of the said Rachel Hunter without issue thereof, or, leaving issue thereof, who shall all predecease the pursuer, the trustees shall pay and make over to the pursuer, as his own absolute property, the principal sum of £4000 sterling, settled by him as aforesaid, and shall further pay to him during his life the free annual proceeds of such funds as shall come into their hands, in virtue of the bond of provision and obligation before referred to of the said William Hunter, and that after the pursuer's death the trustees shall pay the said principal sums received in virtue of the said bond of provision and obligation to the heirs or assignees whomsoever of the said Rachel Hunter; and in the event of the pursuer predeceasing the said Rachel Hunter under the like circumstances, then the trustees shall pay and make over to her, as her own absolute property, such funds as shall have come into their hands under the said bond of provision and obligation, and also during her life the annual free proceeds of the said principal sum of £4000 secured by the pursuer; and that after her death they shall pay the said sum of £4000 to the heirs and assignees whomsoever of the pursuer.’
In 1844 the pursuer granted a bond to the trustees over his estate for £4000, and on Mr Hunter's death in 1866 two sums were paid to the trustees to account of his daughter's share of the bond over his entailed estates, and of his residuary estate. No sum had as yet been received from the bond over the unentailed estates.
In 1848 the pursuer was divorced for adultery....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lady Selsdon v Lord Selsdon
...the other's natural death." 15 This passage has been treated as authoritative in your Lordships' House on at least two occasions (see Harvey v. Farquhar, 10 M. (H.L.) 26, and Montgomery v. Zarifi, 1918 S.C. (H.L.) 128). 16 It does not, however, resolve in terms the problem which arises in ......
-
Montgomery v Zarifi
...Trustees, 1914 S. C. 414, Lord President Strathclyde, at p. 418; Moore v. BullELR, [1891] P. 279; Harvey v. FarquharUNK, (1870) 8 Macph. 971, at p. 975, (1872) 10 Macph. (H. L.) 26; Dawson v. SmartELR, (1903) 5 F. (H. L.) 24, [1903] A. C. 457; Ritchie v. Ritchie's TrusteesSC, (1874) 1 R. 98......
-
Ritchie v Ritchie's Trustees
...Johnson, Feb. 5, 1867, 5 Macph. 340—39 Scot. Jur. 174, Fob. 7, 5 1868, 6 Macph. 333—40 Scot. Jur. 183; Harvey v. Farquhar, July 12, 1870, 8 Macph. 971—42 Scot. Jur. 564—H. L. Feb. 22, 1872, 10 Macph. 26—44 Scot. Jur. ...
-
Taylor's Trustees v Barnett
...in the negative. 1Johnstone-Beattie v. Johnstone, Feb. 5, 1867, 5 Macph. 340, 39 Scot. Jur. 174; Harvey v. Farquhar, July 12, 1870, 8 Macph. 971, 42 Scot. Jur. 2Countess of Argyle v. Tenants of Dollar, Dec. 19, 1573, M. 327. ...