Jones v Ricketts
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 May 1862 |
| Date | 05 May 1862 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 54 E.R. 1087
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 31 L. J. Ch. 753; 8 Jur. (N. S.) 1198; 10 W. R. 576.
[130] jones v. bicketts. May 5, 1862. [S. C. 31 L. J. Ch. 753; 8 Jur. (N. S.) 1198 ; 10 W. E. 576.] A purchase of a reversionary interest for £200 was set aside on the sole ground that the purchaser had paid £38 less than its real value. In 1850 Catherine Jones, being seised of a freehold property called Brechfa-isha, in the county of Brecon, married the Defendant Eicketts. One child only was, in August 1852, born of the marriage, which the Plaintiff insisted was not born alive, the Defendant, however, who claimed to be tenant by the curtesy, said that it was born alive but died shortly after its birth. Catherine Ricketts died in April 1853, and the Defendant, her husband, as he insisted, then became tenant of the curtesy, and her father, Thomas Jones, as her heir, became entitled to the reversion in fee. In June 1853 the Defendant purchased the interest of Thomas Jones for £200, and it was conveyed to him by a deed dated the llth of June 1853. Thomas Jones died intestate, in December 1859, leaving the Plaintiff his heir at law, who, in December 1860, instituted this suit against Eicketts, insisting that there had been no issue of the Defendant's marriage born alive, and that, therefore, the Defendant was not tenant by the curtesy. The bill further alleged as follows :- "At the time of the said conveyance of the llth of June 1853, of the interest of Thomas Jones, the father, in the said messuage, farm and lands, in consideration of the sum of £200, Thomas Jones (who had been a farmer and freeholder) was in reduced circumstances. He was at that time residing with the Defendant in a [131] dependent position, and he had no professional advice or assistance with respect to such conveyance, except that of the Defendant's own solicitor." "The messuage, farm and lands are worth the sum of £1000 at the least, and the sum of £200, even if the same had been paid, was a wholly inadequate price for Thomas Jones's interest therein, even if the same had been reversionary. But the Plaintiff denies that the said consideration moneys or sum of £200 was, in reality, paid to Thomas Jones, and he denies that the said interest was reversionary, for he says that the Defendant was not tenant by the curtesy, because the only issue of the said marriage was a still-born child." The bill prayed that the deed of the llth of June 1853 might be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sharp v Leach
...Mr. Baggallay, for the children of Mr. Leach. Mr. Langhorne, for Mr. and Mrs. Willets. Foxier v. Roberts (29 Beav. 467); Jones v. EicMts (31 Beav. 130); Perfect v. Lane (30 Beav. 197), were cited; and see Hoghton v. Hoghton (15 Beav. 278), and Codke v. Lamoite (Ibid. 234). July 4. the maste......
-
Rae v Joyce
...L. R. 2 Eq. 794. Bromley v. SmithENR 26 Beav. 644. Salter v. Bradshaw Ibid. 161. Foster v. RobertsENR 29 Beav. 467. Jones v. RickettsENR 31 Beav. 130. Miller v. CookELR L. R. 10 Eq. 646. Aylesford v. MorrisELR L. R. 8 Ch. 484. Bolingbroke v. O''RorkeELR 2 App. Cas. 814, at p. 822. Thomson v......