Huguenin v Baseley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 November 1807 |
| Date | 23 November 1807 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 33 E.R. 526
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 1 Wh. & T. L. C. 7th ed. 247. See Hunter v. Atkins, 1834, 3 My. & K. 139; Dent v. Bennett, 1839, 7 Sim. 539; 4 My. & Cr. 277; Russell v. Jackson, 1852, 10 Hare, 212; Reynell v. Sprye, 1852, 1 De G. M. & G. 689; Cockell v. Taylor, 1852, 15 Beav. 119; Hoghton v. Hoghton, 1852, 15 Beav. 299; Tee v. Ferris, 1856, 2 Kay & J. 367; Earl Talbot v. Hope Scott, 1858, 4 Kay & J. 114; Lyon v. Home, 1868, L. R. 6 Eq. 675; Topham v. Duke of Portland, 1869, L. R. 5 Ch. 61; Coutts v. Acworth, 1869, L. R. 8 Eq. 567; Turner v. Collins, 1871, L. R. 7 Ch. 334 (n.); Baker v. Loader, 1872, L. R. 16 Eq. 57; Vane v. Vane, 1873, L. R. 8 Ch. 397; Hall v. Hall. 1873, L. R. 8 Ch. 436; Moxon v. Payne, 1873, L. R. 8 Ch. 887; Allcard v. Skinner, 1887, 36 Ch. D. 160; Morley v. Loughnan, [1893] 1 Ch. 751; Barron v. Willis, [1900] 2 Ch. 131; Wilton v. Osborn, [1901] 2 K. B. 114; Wright v. Carter, [1903] 1 Ch. 56; Cavendish v. Strutt, 1903, 19 Times L. R. 489.
(- - --'- huguenin v. baseley. Nov. Utk, IGth, 17M, 18M, and 23d, 1807. v Atkins, 1834, 3 My. & K. 139 ; Dent v. Bennett, 1839, 7 Sim. 539 ; 4 My. & Cr. 277 ; Russell v. Jackson, 1852, 10 Hare, 212 ; Reynell v. /S r# ?, 1852, 1 De G. M. & G. G89 ; C'ocA^Z v. Ta^or, 1852, 15 Beav. 119 ; Hoghton v. Hoghton, 1852, 15 Beav. 299 ; Tee v. Ferris, 1856, 2 Kay & J. 367 ; #ar£ 7W^ v. Hope Scott, 1858, 4 Kay & J. 114 ; Lyon v. #owie, 1868, L. E. 6 Eq. 675 ; Topham v. Duke of Portland, "l8Q3, L. R, 5 Ch. 61 ; c'om^s v. Acworth, 1869, L. R. 8 Eq. 567 ; Turner v. Collins, 1871, L. E, 7 Ch- 334 (n.) ; £a£er v. Loader, 1872, L. R. 16 Eq. 57 ; Vane v. Fane, 1873, - R- 8 Ch- 397 J ^a^ v- Hal1' 187;3' L- R- 8 Ch- 43 ' ^/oa:on v. Payne, 1873, - R- lS ^L 887 Allcardv. Skinner, 1887, 36 Ch. D. 160 ; Morley V. Loughnan, [1893J 1 Ch. 751 ; Harrow v. Wi^is, [1900] 2 Ch. 131 ; Tfi^on v. Qsborn,\lWl\ ''2 K. B. 114; Wright v. Carter, [1903] 1 Ch. 56; Cavendish v. ^rw^, 1903, 19 Times L, R. 489.] Voluntary Settlement by a widow upon a clergyman and his family set aside ; as obtained by undue influence and abused confidence in the Defendant, as an Agent undertaking the management of her affairs ; upon the principles of public policy and utility, applicable to the relation of Guardian and Ward, &c. The object of the Bill in this cause was to set aside a conveyance, made by the Plaintiff Mrs. Huguenin, previously to her marriage with the other Plaintiff, her second husband ; as having been improperly and fraudulently obtained. The following are the principal circumstances, established by evidence and admission, under which this relief was sought. In 1803 Mrs. Huguenin, then Mrs. Hill, appeared to be entitled in fee-simple to the manors of Cleydon and Hampton Gay, and other estates, in Oxfordshire, under the ultimate limitation of the reversion by a Will, dated in 1768, to her father Richard Hindes ; who had gone to Jamaica ; where he acquired considerable property, real and personal ; which upon his death also descended to her. After some correspondence with their solicitors in England she, in September 1803, returned with her husband from Jamaica, He died in October 1803 ; and in November she, being then about the age of 40, first became acquainted with the Defendant Thomas Baseley, a clergyman ; who was also connected with the family of Hindes, and had with other persons upon the death of the testator, in 1798, instituted a suit, claiming as heirs at law [274] of Richard Hindes ; in which cause an inquiry, directed by the Lord Chancellor, produced the title of Mrs. Huguenin ; as the only child of Richard Hindes, The Bill stated, that the Defendant Baseley, with the view of getting the controul and management of the said estates, and of getting them ultimately settled upon himself, procured an introduction to Mrs. Huguenin ; and having by various means ingratiated himself with her, represented, that her solicitors had mis- 14 VES. JUN. 275. HUGUENIN V. BASELEY 527 managed and neglected her property, and induced her, then a stranger, having no friends or relations in England, and being quite ignorant of the value of property, to withdraw her affairs from those solicitors, and to place them in the hands of the Defendant ; who, with such design, wrote the following letter ; which she, by his inducement, caused to be copied ; and signed and sent to the Solicitors : " sirs,-Having been so unfortunate as to lose the best of husbands and the " sincerest friend by the premature death of Mr. Hill, I feel myself, as it were, left " in that, unprotected state, that I now want the assistance of some friend, with " whom I can advise in the adjustment of my affairs ; and who will kindly interpose " in seeing, that my property is managed to the best advantage. From reflection " I have the greatest reason to believe, that Providence has raised me up a friend, i-kand that friend is Mr. Baseley, who will take upon him the trouble of bringing 11 all my affairs into such a plan as I shall hereafter be enabled to conduct them ;' with facility to myself. Impressed with this agreeable idea, I beg leave to inform ': you, that I commit (subject to my own inspection) the perfect arrangement of " my business with you into Mr. Baseless hands ; and hope, that you will prepare " without any delay every account, [275] that you have standing against me, with '" the deeds, &c., of the estate at Hampton, As I wish to leave London at Lady Day " next, I must desire, that no delay on your part will take place. Mr. Baseley will " be ready to meet you on the business, whenever you will appoint a day. With " this determination I remain, &c., Ann Hill.'" The deeds were accordingly delivered to Baseley; and w^ere deposited by him with his Solicitor. The Bill farther represented, that the Defendant artfully dissuaded the Plaintiff from residing in the house at Hampton Gay, and letting the estate, as she had proposed ; and recommended to her a surveyor ; who gave a very unfavourable account of the situation of the estate ; and the Defendant Baseley soon afterwards offered her £400 a-year for a lease of the whole, clear of all expences, and keeping the premises in repair ; representing £420 a-year as the utmost value ; which was confirmed by his Solicitor ; that she executed the deeds under the persuasion of the Solicitor, that they were her Will, and the lease to Baseley; and that she had no intention to give away or settle her estate, &c. By the deed, dated the 5th of May 1804, which was the subject of the Bill, the Plaintiff Mrs. Huguenin, in consideration of 10s. conveyed the Hampton Gay estates to a trustee, his heirs and assigns, to the use, that she and her assigns might, during her life, receive out of the said manor, &c., an annuity of £400, secured by a trust term of 500 years ; and, subject thereto, to the use of the Defendant Baseley for life, without impeachment of waste ; with remainders to trustees to preserve contingent remainders, to his wife for life, to their children, born or to be born, in tail, with cross-remainders, and the ultimate remainder to Mrs. Huguenin. The value [276] of that estate was rather more than £400 per annum. The Defendant Thomas Baseley by his answer represented, that from the time of his first acquaintance with the Plaintiff a great intimacy took place ; and she expressed a great affection for him and his family ; that she complained of the conduct of her Solicitors ; declaring her intention of taking the management of her affairs from them ; and upon her application he recommended to her his solicitor and a surveyor ; and she intimated to the Defendant her intention of settling her estates on him and his family; and requested him to write to her solicitors ; to acquaint them, that she should take her affairs out of their hands ; and the Defendant at her request did in her presence and with her sanction, and according to her directions, write the form of a letter for that purpose ; which the Plaintiff, as he believes, copied ; and sent to her solicitors : but the Defendant positively denies, tliat such letter was written at his instigation, or by his desire : on the contrary, he wrote the same at the pressing desire of the Plaintiff ; and though the language of the letter was the Defendant's, yet the substance was in fact dictated by her. In another part of the answer the Defendant denied, that he induced her to send that letter; stating his belief, that it was written by him ; but that it was so written at the particular instance and request of the Plaintiff ; who desired him to draw up such letter, as before-mentioned ; and he believes, he did upon that occasion state to the Plaintiff, that, if it was her wish to discharge her solicitors, such letter ought to be in her own hand-writing ; as it would not 528 HUGUENIN ??. BASELEY 14 VES. JITN. 277. be so proper for it to appear in Ids hand-writing ; and the Plaintiff did copy such letter, [277] The Answer further stated, that the Plaintiff frequently expressed to the Defendant a wish to settle her affairs, and make a disposition of her property ; inquiring, whether the Defendant was related to her, and who was her heir at law ; and, being informed, expressed a great dislike to that family : and after various conversations she repeated her determination to settle the Hampton Gay estate on the Defendant and his family ; and, in March 1804, without any persuasion, suggestion, or influence, she gave instructions accordingly; and the Defendant understood her intention to be to settle the estate so as to reserve to herself a rent-charge for her life about equal to the reasonable rent; and that it was her wish, that the Defendant should go and reside there immediately with his family : so that the mansion-house might be kept up ; declaring, that she would never reside there on account of the trouble of repairing, &c. ; arid the Defendant denied all the charges of fraud...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re The Estate of Brocklehurst, deceased
...relationship proved in this case is wholly different in nature from those proved to have existed in such 19th century classic cases as Huguenin v. Baseley (1807) 14 Vesey 273, Allcard v. Skinner (1883) 36 Chancery Division 145 and in the fairly recent case of in re Craig, (1971) Chancery 9......
-
Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV v Burch
...it. That may be a protection against mistake or misrepresentation: it is no protection against undue influence. As Lord Eldon said in Huguenin v Baseley (1807),14 Ves. 273: "the question is not whether she knew what she was doing, had done or was proposing to do, but how the intention was 5......
- Bank of New South Wales v Rogers
-
Nevill Robert John Paull v Bradley Lewis Paull
...intended what he did and understood what he did, is not the end of the matter. The question, as explained long ago, by Lord Eldon, in Huguenin v Baseley (1807) 14 Ves. Jr. 273, is not ‘whether she (the plaintiff) knew what she was doing, had done, or proposed to do, but how the intention (t......
-
Restitution
...who, but for the fraud, would be entitled’, approved of in Lonrho plc v Fayed (No 2)[1991] 4 All ER 961 at 970. In Huguenin v Baseley(1807) 14 Ves Jun 273 at 289; 33 ER 526 at 532, Lord Eldon was most explicit that the third party recipient would hold the property on trust: The case of Brid......
-
Subject Index
...192, 194Hudson v DPP [1992] RTR 27 ............. 43 292 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOFINDEXESHuguenin v Baseley (1807) 14 Ves Jun273.................................................. 225IJL v United Kingdom (2000) 33 EHRR225..........................................................
-
English Influences on the Historical Development of Fiduciary Duties in Scottish Law
...them.9292Rhodes v Bate (1866) LR 1 Ch 252 at 257. See also Hatch v Hatch (1804) 9 Ves 292, 32 ER 615; Huguenin v Baseley (1807) 14 Ves 273, 33 ER 526. Of course see now: Barron v Willis [1900] 2 Ch 121 at 131 per Lindley MR; Wright v Carter [1903] 1 Ch 27; Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (......
-
Burden of Proof in Undue Influence: Common Law and Codes on Collision Course
...1 KB 380.19 Radcliffe v Price (1902) 18 TLR 466; Mitchell v Homfray (1881) 8 QBD 587; Re CMG [1970] Ch 574.20 Huguenin v Baseley (1807) 14 Ves Jun 273; Allcard v Skinner [1887] LR 36 ChD 145.21 Beningfield v Baxter (1886) 12 App Cas 167; Ellis v Barker (1871) Ch App 104.22 Re Lloyds Bank Lt......