Lane v Hardwicke
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 300
ROLLS COURT
[148] lane v. hardwicke. July 19, Nov. 8, 1845; Jan. 29, 1846. As to the necessity of infants and the Attorney-General raising the points of their defence specifically by the answer, instead of putting in what is termed the common answer. In a case, in which the defence of an infant had not been properly raised and proved, a decree was made for the Plaintiff, without prejudice to any bill to be filed by the. infant within six months to establish his right. In 1829 St. Andrew St. John, the younger, granted an annuity to the Plaintiffs,, secured on one-fifth of an estate, to which he was absolutely entitled, in remainder expectant on the life-estate of his father. It afterwards turned out, that previously, and on the 6th of April 1827, he had mortgaged the same property to Swatman and Everard to secure 2000 (his father being a party to the deed). It further appeared, that a few days after, namely, on the 14th of April 1827, he conveyed the estate to trustees, upon trusts, which, so far as it is material to state them, gave him a life-estate, with remainder to his children. This deed was expressed to be made far a nominal consideration, and the settlor at the time was neither married, nor did any marriage appear to have been then in contemplation. The object of this bill was to make the Plaintiffs' securities available, and it insisted, that the settlement of the 14th of April 1827, being made for no valuable consideration, was fraudulent and void as against the Plaintiffs, and prayed a declaration to that effect. St. Andrew St. John died in 1843, leaving an infant son, St. Andrew Beauchamp St. John, who was made a party to the suit. (See 5 Beavan, 222.) He had appeared and bad put in the common infant's answer, submitting his rights to the protection of the Court. [149] The Defendant Hardwicke, by his answer, stated, that the settlement had been made in consideration of the grantor's father paying off his debts. The cause now came on for hearing, no evidence having been entered into by the Defendants. Mr. Kindersley and Mr. Hetherington, for the Plaintiffs. The settlement of 1827 purports to be, and was, voluntary. It is, therefore, void as against the Plaintiffs, under the statute of the 27 Eliz. c. 4. Mr. Turner and Mr. Kennion proceeded to argue, that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellard v Cooper
...& C., C. C. 211. Busby v. SeymourENRUNK 1 Jo. & Lat. 527; S. C. 7 Ir, Eq, Rep. 433. Putman v. BatesENR 3 Russ. 188. Lane v. HardwickeENR 9 Beav. 148. Harrison v. BoswellENR 10 Sim. 382. Pollexfen v. MooreENR 3 Atk. 272. Howel v. PriceENR 1 P. Wms. 294. Clifton v. BurtENR 1 P. Wms. 680, and ......
-
Elsey v Lutyens
...He submitted that the decree should reserve the right of the infant, or be without prejudice to such right, as in Lane v. Eardwicke (9 Beav. 148). [162] the solicitor-general, in reply, on the point of notice, cited Essex v. Baugh (1 Y. & C. C. C. 620). the vice-chancellor directed the case......