Hugh Godfray and John Godfray, - Appellants; William Francis Godfray, - Respondent
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 27 July 1865 |
| Date | 27 July 1865 |
| Court | Privy Council |
English Reports Citation: 16 E.R. 120
ON APPEAL FROM THE ROYAL COURT OF JERSEY.
Mews' Dig. tit. Colony; II. Particular Colonies; 13. Jersey and Guernsey; c. S.C. 35 L.J. P.C. 39; 12 Jur. (N.S.) 397; 14 W.R. 522.
[316] ON APPEAL FROM THE ROYAL COURT OF JERSEY. HUGH GODFRAY and JOHN GODFRAY,-Appellants; WILLIAM FRANCIS GODFRAY,-Respondent * [July 25, 26, and 27, 1865]. According to the law prevailing in Jersey, a sale by an. expectant heir of his expectancy, in the absence of fraud or inadequacy of consideration, cannot be impeached after the lapse of a year and a day from the time of opening the succession [3 Moo. P.O. (N.S.) 342]. Semble. A sale by an expectant heir to his brothers is not by that law necessarily contra bonos mores [3 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 336]. Parties wronged by unconscionable bargains are, by the Jersey law of limitation, allowed a period of thirty years, computed from the date of sale, to impeach the transaction on the ground of inadequacy of consideration, and forty years from the death of the parents; but in order to justify the interference of a Court, evidence must be satisfactorily given that less than one-half of the value has been given for the property purchased [3 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 343]. A Manda-t by the Jersey law is an authority from a principal to his mandatories to manage the property of the former, and on his behalf, as Agents [3 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 331, 338]. G., a native of Jersey, being in embarrassed circumstances, by a deed made in March, 1835, conveyed and transferred his expectant share in the heritable and moveable estate which would accrue to him on his parents' death, to his four brothers in consideration of an annuity. The deed contained a clause binding the parties that they would neither act nor authorize any one to act against the provisions contained in the deed on pain of perjury. By a voluntary deed executed in July, in the same year, by the four brothers, to which G. was not a party, it was agreed that the share of G. which should accrue at the time of the opening of the succession of his parents, after deducting the amount of his debts and of the annuity, should be paid to G., if unmarried, but in the event of his marriage, then that the share should be applied for the benefit of G.'s wife and children. Upon appeal, held by the Judicial Committee, reversing the judgment of the Royal Court of Jersey- * Present: Lord Chelmsford, the Lord Justice Knight Bruce, and the Lord Justice Turner. 120 GODFRAY V. GODFRAY [1865] III MOORE N.S., 317 First, that the deed of March, 1835, was an absolute purchase of G.'s expectant succession, and that the settlement of July, 1835, was a voluntary deed by his four brothers for G.'s benefit, or in the event of his marriage, for his family's benefit, and if he had no family, for themselves ultimately, and did not constitute the four brothers mandatories for G. Held further, that the oath taken by parties to a contract passed before the Bailiff of the Royal Court, to abide by it under pain of perjury, is to be considered to contain a tacit reservation, of just grounds of complaint. Semble-There is nothing by the Jersey law to prevent the creation of trusts inter vivos [3 Moo. P.O. (N.S.) 345]. The Respondent instituted a suit, out of which this appeal arose, in the Royal Court of Jersey, against the Appellants and Philip and Francis Godfray, for the purpose of setting aside a deed of sale executed by the Respondent on the 24th of March, [317] 1835, when in embarrassed circumstances, whereby he conveyed and assigned his expectant or presumptive share in the heritable and moveable estate which would accrue to him on the death and opening of the succession of his father, Hugh Godfray, and Mary Elizabeth Tocque, his wife, who were seized and possessed of immoveable and moveable property in the Island of Jersey, to his four brothers, the two Appellants, Hugh and John, and his two other brothers, Philip and Francis, in consideration of an annuity. This deed contained a clause binding the parties that they would neither act nor authorize any one to act against the provisions contained in the deed on pain of perjury. This deed was passed on oath, and registered in the Island. The suit sought further to revoke a settlement, dated the 17th of July, 1835, made between the Appellants and Philip and Francis Godfray, of the portion of the Respondent's share in the succession so conveyed and vested in them by the deed of the 24th of March, 1835. By such settlement it was agreed that at the death of their father and mother, the Respondent's portion should be placed in the joint names of the four brothers, and that there should be deducted from the moveable part (if sufficient) the sum, of 9600 livres, equal to £400 [318] Jersey currency, which they had agreed to pay for the Respondent, and any other sum which they might think proper to pay for him in case he should become indebted, also the sums which they should have paid on account of the annuity under the deed of the 24th of March, 1835, with interest at £5 per cent, on the different sums; and if the moveable part should not be sufficient, then out of, the immoveable part therein mentioned, and that they would make up an account in January of each year of the rents and interest, and hold the balance in trust, if the Respondent was not married, for him or his benefit, and if he was married, that it should be lawful for them to apply it wholly or in part for the benefit of his family, or in the education of his children, but under no circumstances was it to be subject for the Respondent's debts; and in case the Respondent, at his death, left one or more legitimate children, that the four brothers should continue the trust, and apply the annual produce for the maintenance and education, or otherwise for the benefit of the Respondent's children, and divide the capital and accumulation of interest among his children when they should respectively attain the age of twenty years; and in case of the death of the Respondent without leaving any children, or in case his children should not attain the age of twenty years, then that the property should be divided in equal portions between the four brothers, or, in case of their death, among their respective children. And in case the Respondent should die before his father, the loss from the payment of the annuity was to fall on the four brothers equally; and the four brothers mutually bound themselves and their heirs to fulfil that agreement upon the guarantee of all their property present [319] and future; and by another clause it was provided that, in case the Respondent died, leaving a widow without children, the widow should enjoy a- third of the annual produce during her life, and if he left a widow and children, a third was to be paid to the widow, and the two-thirds applied as before mentioned. After taking evidence, the inferior number of the Royal Court, on the 31st of July, 1862, by an Acte of that date, decided that the deed of sale and settlement, taken together, operated merely as a Mandat, or revocable authority, in the four brothers to administer the Respondent's property on his behalf, and that such 121 Ill MOORE N.S., 320 GODFRAY V. GODFRAY [1865] Mandat might, and, in the circumstances, ought to be revoked, and the Respondent replaced in the management of his property. From this decision the Appellants, Hugh and John Godfray, appealed to the full Court, consisting of the Bailiff and eight Jurats, and which Court, by the casting vote of the Bailiff, by an Acte, or judgment, dated the 29th of February, 1864, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the inferior number, which judgment of affirmance was the subject of the present appeal. The question raised by the appeal involved the following points : First, whether the contract of sale of'the 24th of March, 1835, whereby the Respondent sold his expectant succession on the death of his parents in consideration of the annuity, constituted in the circumstances of his embarrassment, and in the absence of undue influence or fraud, a valid and binding conveyance by the law of Jersey, or was controlled by the settlement of the 17th of July, 1835, so as to create a trust, and to make his four brothers mandatories, managers and agents, for the administration of his affairs. [320] Secondly, whether the right to impeach such deed of sale and settlement was barred by the law of limitation prevailing in the Island, (1) after a year and a day from the day of the opening of the succession on the parents' death, or (2) to impeach the transaction on the ground of inadequacy of price, after thirty years, and (3) forty years after the death of the parents, and Lastly, the effect of the oath taken on passing the contract before the Bailiff, to do nothing contrary to its provision on pain of perjury. Numerous authorities were cited, and an elaborate argument raised upon the origin, constitution, and application of the ancient Norman French law, as prevailing and administered in Jersey, illustrated by reference to the Civil law and the following decisions of the English Courts on sale by an expectant heir of his expectancy, by analogy bearing thereon. Talbot v. Staniforth (1 J. and H. 484), Uavies v. Cooper (5 Myl. and Cr. 270), Addis v. Campbell (4 Beav. 401), Bromley v. Smith (26 Beav. 644), Sturge v. Sturge (12 Beav. 229), Shard v. Leach (31 Beav. 491), The Earl of Chesterfield v. Sir Abraham Janssen (2 Ves. 125; White and Tudor's Sel. of Leading Cases, note p. 395). The questions for the decision of the Judicial Committee in this appeal were, however, narrowed to those stated above, and the authorities as well relating to the ancient Norman French law an to its interpretation and application by the Royal Court of Jersey, are stated and referred to in the judgment. This appeal was argued by The Attorney-General...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anthony John Snell v Mrs. Margaret Beadle (nee Silcock)
...legitimate to import the principles of English law into Jersey law relating to property rights, even if in any case this could be done: Godfray v. Godfray (1865) 3 Moo. PC Privy Council Cases, 316, 344 per Turner L.J. It is important therefore, when one is applying the rule to the facts, to......