John Wright Henniker Wilson, Esq., - Appellant; Mary Wright Henniker Wilson (the Appellant's Wife) and Others, - Respondents
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 May 1848 |
| Date | 23 May 1848 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 9 E.R. 870
House of Lords
Mews' Dig. vii. 981, 1009, 1010, 1011. S.C. 12 Jur. 467; and see 5 H.L.C. 40; 1 Wh. and T.L.C., 7th ed. 577, and notes ad loc. cit. Considered and adopted in Hunt v. Hunt, 1861-62, 4 De G. F. and J. 221; Gibbs v. Harding, 1870, L.R. 5 Ch. 338; Burchell v. Clark, 1876, 2 C.P.D. 98; Marshall v. Marshall, 1879, 5 P.D. 23; Besant v. Wood, 1881, 12 Ch.D. 623; Cahill v. Cahill, 1883, 8 A.C. 430; Aldridge v. Aldridge, 1888, 13 P.D. 214.
Husband and Wife - Articles of Separation - Specific Performance - Jurisdiction.
~~ ^/'H.L.C., 538 WILSON V. WILSON [1846-48] [538] JOHN WEIGHT HENNIKER WILSON, Esq.,- Appellant; MARY WRIGHT HENNIKER WILSON (the Appellant's Wife) and Others,- Respondents [June 16, 1846; Feb. 9, 11, 15, 16, 1847; May 23, 1848]. [Mews' Dig. vii. 981, 1009, 1010, 1011. S.C. 12 Jur. 467 ; and see 5 H.L.C. 40 ; 1 Wh. and T.L.C., 7th ed. 577, and notes ad loc. cit. Considered and adopted in Hunt v. Hunt, 1861-62, 4 De G. F. and J. 221 ; Gibbs v. Harding, 1870, L.R. 5 Ch. 338 ; Burchell v. Clark, 1876, 2 C.P.D. 98 ; Marshall v. Marshall, 1879, 5 P.D. 23 ; Besant v. Wood, 1881, 12 Ch.D. 623 ; CahM v. Cahill, 1883, 8 A.C. 430 ; Aldridge v. Aldridge, 1888, 13 P.D. 214.] Husband and Wife - Articles of Separation - -Specific Performance - Jurisdiction. The Court of Chancery exercises only its ordinary jurisdiction in giving effect to articles of separation between husband and wife, so far as they regard an arrangement of property agreed upon. , The Court, in decreeing specific performance of such articles, does not inquire into r o '' ^e cause f the separation. \tJ. T. ItO. _ The stopping of a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for nullity of marriage, on the fav ' ground of impotency of the husband, is a sufficient consideration to him for rg? .^2 .£ 2 n. articles of separation ; and so, it seems, is a covenant by a third party to pay his debts. Semble, that the Court, after decreeing specific performance of the articles, may restrain the wife, as well as the husband, from proceeding in the suit for nullity. (Infra, pp. 556, 575.) This was an appeal against a decree for specific performance of articles of separation between the appellant and his wife, the respondent. They were married in April 1839. Differences arose between them soon after the marriage, and continued until May 1843, when Mrs. Wilson, by advice of her friends, went to reside at the house of Mr. Foster, her solicitor." On the 8th of that month the appellant was served with a citation from the Consistory Court of London, in a suit for nullity of marriage by reason of impotency. The appellant called next day on Mr. Foster, expressed his anxiety to stop the suit, and to enter into an amicable arrangement for a separation ; and proposed to execute a proper deed for that purpose, and to give up the interests which he took in his wife's property under their marriage settlement, and in virtue of his marital rights, in consideration of an annuity of £1500. By the settlement executed previous to the marriage, [539] a freehold estate in the county of Southampton, called Drayton Lodge, of the value of £2000 aryear, to which Mrs. Wilson was entitled for her life, for her separate use, with remainder to her issue, under the will of Lady Frances Wilson, was secured to the same use, together with £3000 consols, part of her own funds ; and a leasehold house and premises, called the Chelsea Park estate, which, with the land tax charged thereon, she had purchased some time before the marriage, were settled to the use of the appellant during their joint lives, and to her, for her life, if she survived him, with remainder of the term absolutely to the appellant, his executors and assigns. The rest of the respondent's property - consisting of freehold estates in the counties of York and Essex, worth together about £3000 a-year, devised to her by Sir Henry Wilson, for her life, with remainder to her issue, with other remainders over; of a leasehold house in Grosvenor Place, in the county of Middlesex, bequeathed to her by the same will, and also of considerable sums of money in the public funds, in Bank and on mortgage, and other personal estate of large amount, - was not included in the settlement, and therefore, after the solemnization of the marriage, belonged, as the settlement recited, to the appellant in his marital right (see 14 Simons, 405). The appellant was informed, on the 13th of May, that the terms of separation which he proposed to Mr. Foster would not be accepted, and that it was determined by Mrs. Wilson and her advisers to proceed with the suit in the Consistory Court. A notice to that effect was sent on the 25th of May to the appellant, who, on the next day, called again on Mr. Foster, and was informed that the libel in that suit would be filed on the 2d of June then next ensuing, unless an arrangement was completed 870 WILSON V. WILSON [1846-48] I H.L.C., 540 in the mean time. The appellant on the 26th of May again called on Mr. Foster, and with a view of preventing the suit, and the consequent publicity of the charge therein made, proposed [540] (without prejudice) " to bind himself to enter into a deed of separation to be executed immediately, whereby Mrs. Wilson should be secured in the undisturbed enjoyment of Chelsea Park, with the furniture there, and at Dray-ton also; Mrs. W. to receive the rents of the adjacent property at Chelsea, paying the ground rents; the rents of the property in Yorkshire and Essex to be placed under the control of Mrs. W., there being reserved to Mr. Wilson a certain sum annually, which he would prefer hearing suggested by Mrs. Wilson or her advisers. In considering this amount, it should be recollected that Mr. W. had, in pursuance of the agreement made before marriage, effected policies of insurance requiring annual payments to the amount of £600." This memorandum was dated May 26, 1843, and signed by Mr. W. H. Wilson. Mr. Foster having submitted this proposal to Mrs. Wilson and her advisers, by their direction offered the appellant £1000 a-year out of the property, on his entering into a deed to carry the proposal into effect. The appellant required £1200 a-year, but finding after several discussions with Mr. Foster, on the 30th and 31st of May, that unless he accepted the annuity of £1000, the suit in the Consistory Court should proceed, he submitted to the terms proposed, and wrote and signed this memorandum: " The annual sum agreed upon on the part of Mrs. W. H. Wilson, to be paid to Mr. W. H. Wilson under the deed of separation, to be executed immediately, is £1000. The deed made to carry into effect the terms proposed in a memorandum dated the 26th of May, 1843, signed by Mr. H. Wilson, and to be a bar to suits; suit now pending to be withdrawn on the mutual execution of the agreement." Articles of agreement for separation were immediately prepared, and the appellant-having before refused to appoint a solicitor, as being himself a barrister, and competent to conduct the negotiation-perused the draft and sug-[541]-gested alterations in it, and perused it again after it was finally settled on behalf of the respondent, and he assisted also in examining the engrossment. The articles so prepared, dated the 1st of June, 1843, and made between the appellant of the first part, the respondent, his wife, of the second part, and Nathan Wetherell, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn, and the said Mr. Foster, of the third part-after reciting that, unhappy differences having arisen between the appellant and his wife, they had agreed to live separate, and to enter into the arrangements after mentioned -witnessed that the appellant on the one part, and the said N. Wetherell and W. C. Foster on the other part, with the privity and approbation of Mrs. Wilson, mutually covenanted and agreed to the effect following: - First, That the appellant should at all times thereafter permit Mrs. Wilson to live separate and apart from him, etc. Secondly, That the Chelsea Park estate, and the land tax thereon, comprised in the marriage settlement of Mr. and Mrs. Wilson, and thereby settled as before stated, and all such other estates (if any) as might be purchased or taken in exchange under the provisions thereof, should, from and after the 24th of June, 1843, be held by the trustees of the said settlement, in trust for Mrs. Wilson, for her separate use during the joint lives of herself and the appellant, to the intent that his life interest in the premises during the life of Mrs. Wilson might be superseded; but nevertheless without prejudice to his ultimate interests in the said premises expectant upon her decease. Thirdly, That the estate in the county of Southampton, devised by Lady F. Wilson, and also the sum of £3000 consols, comprised in the marriage settlement, should remain subject to the trusts thereof. Fourthly, That all other freehold, copyhold, and leasehold estates, to which Mrs. Wilson was, at the time of her marriage, or since become, entitled under the wills of [542] Sir Henry and Lady Wilson, should after the said 24th of June, subject, as to such of these estates as were situate in the county of York, to the annuity of £1000 after mentioned, be conveyed by the appellant to the trustees of the settlement, for the separate use of Mrs. Wilson, for the joint lives of her and the appellant. Fifthly, That all the furniture in the mansion at Chelsea Park, should be held and enjoyed by Mrs. Wilson during her life, for her separate use, and after her 871 IH.L.C.,643 WILSON V. WILSON [1846-48] decease should belong to the appellant, his executors, etc.; and that all other goods and effects in the said mansion (except books belonging to the appellant) and all additions to be made thereto, and to the furniture, and all furniture, goods, and effects, in the mansion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
P. O'D v A. O'D
...Ltd. v. Mackintosh [1992] I.L.R.M. 204. O'Neill v. Ryan [1993] I.L.R.M. 557. Sullivan v. Sullivan 2 Addams 299. Wilson v. Wilson (1848) 1 H.L.C. 538. Family law - Judicial separation - Ancillary relief - Nature of decree - Separation agreement - Whether court barred by prior separation agre......
-
MacLeod v MacLeod
...349, HL. White v White[2000] 3 FCR 555, [2001] 1 All ER 1, [2001] 1 AC 596, [2000] 3 WLR 1571, [2000] 2 FLR 981, HL. Wilson v Wilson (1848) 1 HL Cas 538, 9 ER X v X (Y and Z intervening) [2002] 1 FLR 508. Xydhias v Xydhias[1999] 1 FCR 289, [1999] 2 All ER 386, [1999] 1 FLR 683, CA. AppealRo......
-
NG v KR (Pre-nuptial Contract)
...separation is, and always has been, in principle perfectly lawful and enforceable: see, for example, Wilson v Wilson (1845) 14 Sim 405, (1848) 1 HLC 538, and Hyman v Hyman [1929] AC 601. Thus, as Mr Pointer observes, as early as 1864 it had been held in Rowley v Rowley (1864) 3 Sw & Tr 337,......
-
Radmacher (formerly Granatino) v Granatino
...v. Countess of Ross (1813) 1 Dow 235; and see the arguments of Sir Fitzroy Kelly and Mr Turner and of Mr Bethell in Wilson v. Wilson (1848) 1 H. L. C. 538, 550-553, 564, 565. Finally they were fully recognized in equity by Lord Westbury's leading judgment in Hunt v. Hunt (1861) 4 D. F. & J.......
-
Domestic Contracts and Family Law Exceptionalism: An Historical Perspective.
...(42) See St John, supra note 41; Westmeath (Earl of) v Westmeath (Countess of) (1821), Jac 126, 37 ER 797. (43) [1846-48] I HL Cas 538, 9 ER 870. (44) Ibid at (45) See Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 (UK), 20 & 21 Vict, c 85. (46) See An Act to Make Further Provision Concerning the Court fo......