Jeans v Cooke
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 December 1857 |
| Date | 16 December 1857 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 53 E.R. 456
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 27 L. J. Ch. 202; 4 Jur. (N. S.) 57; 6 W. R. 175.
456 JEANS V. COOKE MBEAV.513. [513] jeans v. cooke. Dec. 2, 3, 16, 1857. [S. C. 27 L. J. Ch. 202; 4 Jur. (N. S.) 57 ; 6 W. R. 175.] A father purchased a copyhold, arid was admitted thereto to hold during the lives of his three children, A., B. and C. successively. B., after the death of the father and A., got admitted, whereupon the Plaintiff, who claimed under the father's will, instituted a suit to have B. declared a trustee for him. As an excuse for not proceeding at law, the Plaintiff alleged a, custom of the manor, by which the cestui cjuk vie was entitled to be admitted ; this was disputed. Held, that even assuming the custom, still, by the form of the grant, the father had made an advancement to his sons, who was therefore entitled beneficially, and not as trustees for their father. The evidence to rebut the presumption of an advancement, in the case of a purchase by a father in the name of a child, ought to be distinct and contemporaneous. The question in this case had reference to a copyhold estate, held of the manor of Pitton and Farley, in the county of Wilts, and arose under the following circumstances :- In 1809 Henry Cooke, the father, purchased the property, and was admitted thereto, " to hold the same unto the said Henry Cooke for the lives of Henry Cooke, aged seventeen years, George Cooke, aged eight years, and James Cooke, aged seven years (his three sons), and for the life of the longest liver of them successively, at the will of the lord, according to the custom," at an annual rent of 1, 8s., and a heriot on the death of each of them the said Henry Cooke, the son, George Cooke, and James Cooke. Henry Cooke, [514] the father, as sole purchaser, paid the lord a fine of 1200. The father cultivated the farm until 1832, when George, his son, became his tenant. Henry, the father, devised all his estate and interest in the property to his son Henry, and died in 1835. In 1836 Henry the son was admitted for the term of his life, and George continued his tenant. Henry died in 1855, having devised the estate. In 1856 George, as one of the lives on the original grant of 1809, was admitted to the copyholds for the term of his life, and claimed them beneficially under the original grant. Whereupon the Plaintiffs Jeans, who claimed the property under the will of Henry the son, instituted this suit against George, to have it declared that George was a trustee for them. The Plaintiffs contended that the father was the absolute owner of the estate, and that his three sons were trustees for him. They alleged that they were unable to proceed at law against the Defendant, because, by a custom of the manor, the first cestui que vie on the rolls was entitled to admittance. They further insisted that the acts and circumstances shewed that the father did not intend to make an advancement to his sons. The Defendant contended that there was no such custom alleged or proved, and that the proper course for the Plaintiffs to take was to proceed by action at law; secondly, that even if such custom really existed, [515] then that the effect of the insertion, by the father, of his children's names, in the admission of 1809, was to create an advancement in their favour, and not to make them trustees. The cause now came on for hearing. Mr. B,. Palmer and Mr. W. W. Cooper cited as to the custom Doe d. Nepean v. Goddard (1 Barn. & C. 522); RigM d. The Dean and Chapter of Wells v. Bawden (3 East, 260); Lewis v. Lane (2 Myl. & K. 449); Smith v. Baker (1 Atk. 385). As to advancement they cited Finch v. Finch (15 Ves. 43, 50); Skeats v. Cheats (2 Yo. & Col. (C. C.) 9); Murless v. Franklin (1 Swan. 13); Scawin v. Scawin (1 Yo. & MBEAV.BU. JEANS V. COOKE 457 C. (C. C.) 65); Prankerd v. Prcmkerd (1 Sim. & St. 1); Smith v. Warde (15 Sim. 56); Edwards v. Edwards (2 Yo. & Col. (Ex.) 123). Mr. Selwyn and Mr. C. Hall, for the Defendants, referred to and commented on the following cases :-Anon. (Lofft. Rep. 390); King v. The Lord of the Manor of Hexham (5 Ad. & El. 559); Lewis v. Lane (2 Myl. & K. 449); Skeats v. Skeats (2 Yo. & Col. (C. C.) 9) ; Dyer v...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Shephard. Shephard v Cartwright
...by Lord Eldon and Lord Brougham respectively, and with cases such as Sidmouth v. Sidmouth, reported in 2 Beavan's Reports at page 447, Jeans v. Cooke, reported in 24 Beavan's Reports at page 513, and Christie v. Courtenay, reported in 13 Beavan's Reports at page 96. The reason for rejecting......
-
Pecore v. Pecore, (2007) 361 N.R. 1 (SCC)
...303 N.Y. 33, refd to. [para. 52]. Clemens v. Clemens Estate, [1956] S.C.R. 286, refd to. [para. 56]. Jeans v. Cooke (1857), 24 Beav. 513; 53 E.R. 456 (Rolls. Ct.), refd to. [para. Shephard v. Cartwright, [1955] A.C. 431 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 56]. Neazor v. Hoyle (1962), 32 D.L.R.(2d) 131 ......
-
Pecore v. Pecore, (2007) 224 O.A.C. 330 (SCC)
...303 N.Y. 33, refd to. [para. 52]. Clemens v. Clemens Estate, [1956] S.C.R. 286, refd to. [para. 56]. Jeans v. Cooke (1857), 24 Beav. 513; 53 E.R. 456 (Rolls. Ct.), refd to. [para. Shephard v. Cartwright, [1955] A.C. 431 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 56]. Neazor v. Hoyle (1962), 32 D.L.R.(2d) 131 ......
-
R.S.K. v. W.F.W., 2016 ABQB 28
...nearly so", to the transaction: see Clemens v. Clemens Estate , [1956] S.C.R. 286, at p. 294, citing Jeans v. Cooke (1857), 24 Beav. 513, 53 E.R. 456. Whether evidence subsequent to a transfer is admissible has often been a question of whether it complies with the Viscount Simonds' rule in ......