Hoghton v Hoghton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1852 |
| Date | 01 January 1852 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 545
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 21 L. J. Ch. 482; 17 Jur. 99. See Chambers v. Crabbe, 1865, 34 Beav. 459; Potts v. Surr, 1865, 34 Beav. 552; Turner v. Collins, 1871, L. R. 7 Ch. 335, n.; Carnegie v. Carnegie, 1874, 30 L. T. 462; Fane v. Fane, 1875, L. R. 20 Eq. 709; Allear v. Skinner, 1887, 36 Ch. D. 160; Hoblyn v. Hoblyn, 1889, 41 Ch. D. 206.
UBEAV. S7. HOGHTON V. HOGHTON 545 [278] hoghton v. hoghton.(!) Feb. 27, 28, March 1, 2, 3, April 16, 24, 1852. [S. C. 21 L. J. Ch. 482; 17 Jur. 99. See Chambers v. Cra&fce, 1865, 34 Beav. 459; Pos v. Swrr, 1865, 34 Beav. 552; Turner v. Collins, 1871, L. E. 7 Ch. 335, n. ; Carnegie v. Carnegie, 1874, 30 L. T. 462; /W v. .Farae, 1875, L. R. 20 Eq. 709; Allcard v. SWraier, 1887, 36 Ch. D. 160; Hoblyn v. Hoblyn, 1889, 41 Cb. I). 206.] Distinction between the cases where, as between strangers, benefits are obtained by undue influence, and arrangements entered into for the peace of families and the security of family property. If a person obtain by voluntary donation a large pecuniary benefit from another, the burthen of proving the transaction righteous falls on the person taking the benefit, and this is proved by shewing that the donor fully understood what he was doing ; but where the relation of the parties is such that undue influence might have been exercised, it must also be shewn that the disposition of the donor was not produced by undue influence. In many cases, the Court, from the relations existing between the parties, infers the probability of undue influence, as in the cases of guardian and ward, solicitor and client, spiritual adviser and pupil, medical adviser and patient, and the like. Transactions between such persons are watched with jealousy, not only to see that the party fully understood the Act, but also that it was not brought about by the exercise of that influence. The relation of parent and child comes within this class. Such an influence is not discountenanced by the Court, but it ought to be exercised for the benefit of the person subject to, and not of the person possessing it. In family arrangements, though the influence exist, aud has probably been exercised, yet if the transaction be one that tends to the peace or security of the family, to the avoiding of family disputes and litigation, or to the preservation of the family property, the same principles are not applied as to dealings between strangers, but such principles are then applied, as, on the most comprehensive experience, have been found to tend most to the interest of families. The cases relating to the resettlement of the family property appear stronger. Eleven months after a tenant in tail attained twenty-one, he concurred with his father in barring the entail and resettling the family estates, the Court being of opinion that the father thereby took direct benefits proceeding from the son : that the property had not been resettled in a reasonable and proper mode, if the interest of the family alone was to be regarded : that in the preparation of the deed, the son had no professional assistance, and that the contents were not properly made known to him, set aside the arrangement. When a party is subject to the obligation of shewing that an unprofessional person understood the contents of a deed which he executed, the mere proof of its having been read over to him, unaccompanied with proper explanations, is not sufficient to satisfy the Court that the person hearing it read understood it. In 1843 a tenant in tail joined in resettling one of two family estates. He disputed the validity of the transaction, and subsequently, in 1845, married. On that occasion a settlement was executed, making provision for the younger children only of the marriage. The instructions stated, that it was desired to keep his landed estates free from any settlement, and contained this note: " N. E. - The eldest son will take the family estate." In a suit to set aside the re-settlement of 1843, affidavits were produced, on behalf of the infant eldest son of the marriage, to shew that, on the negotiation for the marriage, it was understood, that under existing settlements the eldest son would become entitled to considerable landed estates, (1) dates. 1820. Marriage of Sir H. B. Hoghton. | 1843. Feb. Sale completed. 1843. July 7. Re-settlement. 1845. Aug. Plaintiff's marriage. 1848. Bill filed. 1840. Death of Lady Hoghton. 1842. Aug. 2. Plaintiff attained twenty-one. R. IV.-18 546 HOGHTON V. HOGHTON 15BBAV.279. and therefore, that it was only necessary to provide for the younger children. Held, first, that these affidavits were inadmissible under Sir George Turner's Act (13 & 14 Viet. c. 35); and, secondly, that if admitted, they did not shew that the marriage proceeded on the faith of the re-settlement of 1843, and that in this suit no decree or inquiry could be made in favour of the infant. An estate, vested in A. for life, with remainder to his eldest son B. in tail, was subject to considerable family mortgages. B., being possessed of other large property, granted an annuity of £2500 a year to A., to cease upon his death, or upon B.'s "paying off, satisfying, and discharging" the several mortgages. Held, on the whole, that the intention was to merge the mortgages. Where a deed is declared void in equity and cancelled, a reconveyance is not necessary; semble. Where letters are written " without prejudice," with a view to a compromise, they cannot be given in evidence. This suit was instituted by an eldest son against his father and others, to set aside a deed of re-settlement of the family estates, executed soon after the son attained his majority. The facts were shortly these: In 1820 Sir Henry B. Hoghton, the father of the Plaintiff, married Dorothea Bold. On that occasion, the Hoghton or paternal estates, which were stated to be of the value of £8000 a year, but incumbered to the extent of £81,400, were [279] settled on Sir Henry B. Hoghton for life, with remainder to his first and other sons in tail, with power to Sir Henry of jointuring any wife to the extent of £2000 a year, and to charge the estate with £30,000 in favour of his younger children. The Bold or maternal estates, of the value of £13,000 a year, and free from incumbrances, already stood settled (in the events which happened) on Dorothea Bold (afterwards Lady Hoghton) for life, with remainder to her first and other sons in tail. There were five children of the marriage, of whom the Plaintiff was the eldest. He attained twenty-one on the 2d of August 1842 ; and his mother having died in [280] 1840, he became tenant in tail in possession of the Bold estates. The income of his father being greatly reduced by the death of Lady Hoghton, which deprived him of all interest in the Bold estates, the Plaintiff, during his minority, appointed his father guardian in socage ; and during the minority, Sir Henry entered into a provisional contract for the sale of part of the Bold estate for £133,000, to be completed on the Plaintiff's attaining his majority. The Plaintiff, on the day he attained his majority, executed a bond securing his father an annuity of £2500 for life, but to cease on the Plaintiff's " paying off, satisfying, and discharging " the mortgages on the Hoghton estate. In February 1843 the Plaintiff completed the sale of the North Meols estate for £133,000, and of this sum £81,400 were applied in payment of the mortgages on the Hoghton estates, which were then merged, and the residue of the purchase-money was paid to the Plaintiff. No part of this transaction was called in question, except as to the merger of the mortgages, and respecting one of the mortgages of £1600, which was one created by Sir Henry himself. The transaction principally complained of was this : The father being tenant for life in possession of the Hoghton estates, with remainder to the Plaintiff in tail, a re-settlement was executed by them on the 7th of July 1843, and thereby the Hoghton estates were re-settled as follows: to such uses as the father and son should appoint, and in default to the father for life, with remainder to the Plaintiff for life, with remainder to the Plaintiff's first and other sons in tail male, with remainder as the father, if he should survive the [281] Plaintiff, should appoint. Afterwards the estates were limited to the second and third sons of Sir Henry for life, with remainder to their first and other sons in tail male, with remainder to any sons Sir Henry might have in tail male, with remainder to the daughters of Sir Henry and their issue in tail male, with an ultimate remainder to Sir Henry in fee. The deed gave to Sir Henry a power to jointure any future wife to the extent of £2000 a year, to be reduced to £1500 on his appointing, as he had power to do, £500 a year to any stranger. 1JBEAV.M2. HOGHTON V. HOGHTON 547 The Plaintiff, insisting that this re-settlement, giving the father great benefits, could not, under the circumstances, stand in equity, filed his bill in 1848, praying that the re-settlement of the 7th of July 1843 might be set aside, and that the mortgages on the Hoghton estate might be declared to be subsisting for the Plaintiff's benefit. In reference to another point raised by the infant tenant in tail under the settlement, it is necessary to add the following additional statement:- The Plaintiff married in August 1845, on which occasion he made a settlement of part of his own property : but the deed contained no provision for the infant Defendant, who was the eldest son of the marriage. Affidavits were offered in evidence on behalf of the infant Defendant, tending to shew, that on the negotiation for the marriage of the Plaintiff with his wife, it was understood, that settlements existed, under which the eldest son of the marriage would become entitled to considerable landed estates, and therefore, that it was only necessary to provide for the younger children...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barclays Bank Plc v O'Brien
...was made fairly and honestly and in full understanding of the nature and consequences of the transaction: see ( Hoghton v. Hoghton [1852) 15 Beav. 278. Although this heresy has never been formally overruled, it has rightly been regarded as bad law for a very long time: see the account give......
-
Alan Ramsay Sales & Marketing Ltd v Typhoo Tea Ltd
...busy practitioners are acting prudently in making the general working assumption that the rule, if not "sacred" ( Hoghton v. Hoghton (1852) 15 Beav. 278, 321), has a wide and compelling effect. That is particularly true where the "without prejudice" communications in question consist not of......
-
Single Buoy Moorings Inc. v Aspen Insurance UK Ltd (on behalf of all underwriters subscribing to Policy No. HL250608 save for AIG Europe Ltd)
...he had “no doubt that busy practitioners are acting prudently in making the general working assumption that the rule, if not ‘sacred’ ( Hoghton v. Hoghton (1852) 15 Beav. 278, 321), has a wide and compelling effect”. In Ofulue v Bossert, Lord Walker, having referred to views expressed by Lo......
-
Broun v Kennedy
...of valuable services rendered. Mr. Cole waived a reply. The following cases were cited:-Tomson v. Judge (3 Drew. 306); Hoghton v. Hoghion (15 Beav. 278); Huguenin v. Baseley (14 Ves. 273); Nanney v. Williams (22 Beav. 452) ] Cooke v. Laniotte (15 Beav. 234); Forshaw v. Welsby (30 Beav. 243)......
-
English Influences on the Historical Development of Fiduciary Duties in Scottish Law
...from an office, the law of breach of confidence, and the manner in which undue influence was used by the courts.107107Hoghton v Hoghton (1852) 15 Beav 278, 51 ER 545; Chambers v Crabbe (1865) 34 Beav 457, 55 ER 712; Potts v Surr (1865) 34 Beav 543, 55 ER 745; Turner v Collins (1871–72) LR 7......