Harvey v Mount
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 March 1845 |
| Date | 11 March 1845 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 172
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 14 L. J. Ch. 233; 9 Jur. 741. Discussed, Baker v. Loader, 1872, L. R. 16 Eq. 49.
[439] harvey 11. mount. Feb. 28, 29, March 6, 10, 11, 1845. [S. C. 14 L. J. Ch. 233; 9 Jur. 741. Discussed, Baker v. Loader, 1872, L. R. 16 Eq. 49.] Voluntary settlement by a younger sister, of the whole of her present and future-property principally in favour of her eldest sister, set aside, the eldest sister having-obtained great ascendancy and influence over the younger, the circumstances of the-transaction being open to suspicion, the settlement being very improvident, and the settlor not having had the benefit of independent professional advice. A solicitor acted for both parties in the matter of a voluntary settlement, which was. set aside for undue influence. He was made a Defendant to the suit for that purpose. The Court, though exonerating him from culpability in the matter, made him bear his own costs, because he had not acted with proper prudence in the matter. Solicitors are justified in obtaining from a witness, prior to his examination, a statement of the facts, but it is improper to obtain a statement upon oath, unless, required for the purposes of the cause. SBEAV.4M, HARVEY V. MOUNT 173 Plaintiffs entitled to the general costs of suit, deprived of the costs subsequent to the replication, on the ground that they had entered into a mass of unnecessary evidence. The object of this bill was to set aside a voluntary settlement, on the ground of undue influence, &c. The circumstances of the case were as follows :- The mother and father of Grace and Sarah Beake (who were the principal parties to this suit), died in 1810, leaving Grace and Sarah, and several other children them surviving. The management of the family thereupon wholly devolved on Miss Grace Beake, the eldest daughter. The children continued to reside together until some of them married and settled, when they left, and ultimately in 1822 Grace and Sarah alone remained together. They continued to reside together [440] from 1822 until the year 1841. Grace had the whole superintendence and management of the establishment. She received into her hands the income of Sarah, she wholly arranged the expenditure, and provided Sarah with clothes, and all other necessaries. Grace, the eldest sister, was a person of strong mind, but Sarah, though not alleged to be incompetent, was a person of bad health and very inferior in mental powers to her sister. The eldest sister naturally attained very great influence, control and ascendancy, over the younger, and their relative position was described by the witnesses, to be like that of a daughter to a mother. In October 1841 a marriage (which afterwards took place) was in contemplation between Grace and the Defendant Mount, on which occasion the settlement in question was executed, and the circumstances which preceded its execution were detailed in the answer of Mount and Grace, his wife, as follows :- " That after their marriage was agreed upon, Defendants discussed the nature and amount of the property of Defendant, Grace Mount, and she informed him, Mount, of the nature and amount of all her property, and therein included all the property of the Plaintiff, Sarah Beake, subject to her life interest therein, whereupon he, William Mount inquired in what manner she was entitled thereto, and she informed him, that Sarah Beake had made her will" in her favour, " and had often said she would not alter it; and that he, William Mount, then told her, that notwithstanding auch assurance, the will was revocable, and if such assurance had been given, it would be satisfactory on the occasion of their marriage, that a settlement, similar in terms to the disposition contained in the said will, should be made." [441] "And they said, that on a subsequent occasion about the middle of October, the Defendants, Mount and wife, before they had informed any other member of the family of Sarah Beake thereof, informed her of the intended marriage, and William Mount then said, ' Mind, what hai passed must not go further than th, room.'" And they said, "That Sarah Beake, on or about the 20th of October 1841, without any previous communication from any peaep,n voluntarily broached the subject of her own property, and said to William Mount, f- Mr. .MbtMit,. I ^ave a favour to ask of you -will you not be my trustee to take care of me and my property ?' to which William Mount, after a little further consideration on the subject, did not object; and on that occasion, Grac aid to Sarah Beake, that she, Sarah, could not continue to live with Mount and wife after their marriage, and asked her what she intended to do; at which, intimation, she appeared much affected, and replied, 'I cannot live with either of the Spains or Cordeauxs (her other married sisters), and I do not know what I shall do.'" And they further said, " that on a subsequent occasion, Grace and Sarah were discussing the subject of her, Sarah Beake's property, and Grace communicated to her tb.0 conversation which she had, as aforesaid, had thereon with William Mount, whereupon Sarah expressed her approbation of the proposition that a settlement should be made as before mentioned, and her willingness to execute such settlement, and tti give instructions for the preparation of the same; and further, that if Defendants would, or so long as they would permit her, Sarah, to live with them, the interest of her property, reserved to herself for life, should be paid to Grace, she all the personal expences of Sarah." [442] It appeared that a Messrs. Sladden & Sankey had hitherto been the 174 HARVEY V. MOUNT 8 BEAV. 443. professional advisers of the two sisters, but on this occasion, another professional gentleman, of the name of White, was employed by them. The two sisters called on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lim Geok Hian v Lim Guan Chin
...(1723) 2 P Wms 182; 24 ER 691 (folld) Cresswell v Potter [1978] 1 WLR 255 (refd) Fry v Lane (1889) 40 Ch D 312 (refd) Harvey v Mount (1845) 8 Beav 439; 50 ER 172 (distd) Lai Kwee Lan v Ng Yew Lay [1989] 2 SLR (R) 252; [1989] SLR 863 (folld) Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy [1975] QB 326 (not folld) ......
-
Gregg v Kidd
...be set aside and the deed must be delivered up to be cancelled. (1) 14 Ves. 273. (2) 4 My. & C. 277. (3) 36 Ch. D. 145. at p. 171. (4) 8 Beav. 439. (5) 31 Beav. (6) 3 Madd. 181. (1) 14 Ves. 273. (1) 36 Ch. D. 145. (2) 31 Beav. 491. (3) 3 Madd. 191. (4) 15 Beav. 234. (5) [1929] A. C. 127. (6......
-
Anderson v Elsworth
...the case of Forshaw v. Welsby, heard on the 20th of December 1860, the Master of the Eolls again took the same view. In Harvey v. Mount (8 Beav. 439) the Court set aside a deed, without power of revocation, mainly on that ground (Ibid. 451), and gave- the solicitor, who proposed and who was......
-
Armstrong v Armstrong
...Baker v. BradleyENRENR 2 Sm. & Giff. 531; reversed on Appeal, 7 De G. M. & G. 507. Hoghton v. HoghtonENR 15 Beav. 305. Harvey v. MountENR 8 Beav. 439. Turner v. CollinsELR L. R. 7 Ch. App. 340. Sefton v. HopwoodENR 1 F. & F. 578. Swinfen v. Swinfen Ibid. 587. Rhodes v. BateELR L. R. 1 Ch. A......