Jervoise v Jervoise
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 December 1853 |
| Date | 05 December 1853 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 1154
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 23 L. J. Ch. 703; 2 W. R. 91.
[566] jervoise . jehvoise. Dec. 5, 1853. [S, C. 23 L. J. Ch. 703; 2 W. R. 91.] Old family jewels do not constitute paraphernalia. Pearl ornaments presented to a married woman by a third party, held to be part of her paraphernalia. So, likewise, brilliant bracelets bought by the husband and given to the wife, though worn with the family jewels, constitute part of her paraphernalia. A husband, who was entitled to family jewels and diamonds, bequeathed to his wife all "hia" jewels for life, and afterwards as heirlooms. Held, that this bequest did not include pearl ornaments presented to her, or brilliant bracelets bought by the husband and given to the wife, and worn with the family jewels, so as to put the wife to her election. In 1799 the Plaintiff, Dame Elizabeth Clarke Jervoise, intermarried with the Rev. Samuel Clarke; she was then entitled to some small separate property, besides a jointure, secured to her by her marriage settlement. At the time of the marriage, Mr. Clarke was entitled to certain jewels, including diamonds, which it was believed came to him from his maternal relations. He subsequently became entitled (as was supposed) to other jewels, as residuary legatee, under the will of his father, who died in January 1808. On the 9th of November 1808 Mr. Clarke took the surname of Jervoise, and in 1813 he was created a baronet. Soon after the marriage of the Plaintiff, Miss Ann Clarke (her husband's aunt) made her a present of an old-fashioned set of pearl ornaments, which she had reset, and she paid the expense of resetting out of her own separate money. Her husband also ordered a brilliant bracelet, and shortly after its purchase, he observed to her that he thought the other arm looked jealous, and he would order a second bracelet, which he accordingly did, and paid for the two out of his own money. The Plaintiff was in the habit, from time to time afterwards, of wearing the two bracelets with her husband's jewels, at Court and elsewhere, but the bracelets more frequently alone, inasmuch as she [667] wore them at ordinary parties; while she wore the other jewels at Court only and on other full-dress occasions. In 1837 the Plaintiff and her husband ceased to reside in their house in. Hanover Square and commenced travelling about from place to place; and at the Plaintiff's request her husband deposited the set of pearls and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grant v Grant
...(2 Atk. 77); Graham v. Lomlonderry (3 Atk. 393); Mews v. Mews (15 Beav. 529) ; Tipping v. Tipping (1 Peere, W. 729); Jervoise v. Jervoise (17 Beav. 566). Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Kay, for the Defendant, cited M'Lean v. Longlands (5 Ves. 71); Walter v. Hodge (2 Swan. 92); and as to costs, Governes......
-
Berry v Berry
...BERRY and BERRY. Jervoise v. JervoiseENR 17 Beav. 566. Calmady v. Calmady 11 Vin. Ab. 181, pl. 29. Gurley v. GurleyUNK 8 C. & F. 743. Read v. SnellENR 2 Atk. 643. Cholmely v. CholmelyENR 2 Vern. 47, 83. Nottley v. PalmerENR 2 Drew. 93. Walker v. Walker 1 Ves. 54. Druce v. Dennison 6 Ves jun......