Lawes v Bennett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 February 1785 |
| Date | 15 February 1785 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 29 E.R. 1111
AT THE ROLLS
See Marston v. Fox, 1838, 8 A. & E. 63; Lord v. Colvin, 1867, L. R. 3 Eq. 742; Lysaght v. Edwards, 1876, 2 Ch. D. 520. Principle not to be extended, Edwards v. West, 1878, 7 Ch. D. 858. See In re Adams and the Kensington Vestry, 1884, 27 Ch. D. 399. Principle applicable to an intestacy, In re Isaacs, Isaacs v. Reginall, [1894] 3 Ch. 506. Distinguished, In re Pyle, Pyle v. Pyle, [1895] 1 Ch. 724.
1 COX, 166. SOWDEN v. SOWDEN aid of the endowment of any hospital already existing. lie therefore referred it to the Master to inquire whether there was any hospital existing in Dorsetshire. Some mention having been made of marshalling assets so as to let in the charities upon the personal estate which were void devises as to the real estate, his Honour said that doctrine was now wholly exploded as an evasion of the statute, particularly by the case of the Attorney-General v. Tindall, which was successively decided so by Lord Northiington, Lords Commissioners, and Lord Camden. SOWDEN versus SOWDEN. At the Rolls, Feb. 3, 1785; Sir Lloyd Kenyon. On marriage the husband covenants to pay to trustees the sum of £2000 at least, to be by them laid out in land in the county of D, and settled to the uses of the marriage ; the husband never pays the money to the trustees, but soon after the marriage purchases land in the county of D. and takes the conveyance to himself in fee, and then dies intestate, without making any settlement. These lands will be considered as purchased by the husband in pursuance of his covenant, and be liable to the trust of the settlement. For Case and Argument, vide 1 Brown, Cha. Rep. 582-, Meter of the Rolls [Sir Lloyd Kenyon]. I feel myself in the same situation hi' which Lord Ha/rdwicke expressed himself to be, not inclined to carry these cases further than they have been carried ; but at the same time I must not make nice and finical distinctions where the cases are in substance the same with those in which the points have been decided. As to all hardship in this case, I lay all consideration of it totally aside. I must decide this by the cases before decided, and not depart from the established rules of property. Now in this case, beyond all doubt, it was incum-[166]-bent on the husband to lay out the money on real estate ; but the distinction which has been taken is, that the husband covenanted to pay the money to trustees to be laid out, and therefore his laying out money himself in the purchase of the estate, could not be meant as complying with that covenant, and I think the distinction taken by Mr. Hardinge a very important one (and would deserve great consideration if it were roe integra) between this case where the money is, to be paid to trustees, and the others where the party covenants to make the purchase himself. But the main case on which 1 chose to rely is that of Lecionere Lechmere. In Forrester's Report of that case a very material circumstance is omitted, which is mentioned in P. Wms. namely, that the covenant was to purchase, with the consent of the Earl of Carlisle and Lord Morpeth, and that the purchases made by Lord Lechmere were without that consent. However, this case having decided, that if a man covenant to purchase land mode et forma, and if he do purchase at all, whether modo et forma, or otherwise, it shall be the same thing, this gets rid of great part of the argument ; and then I cannot distinguish the present case from Lechmere v. Lechmere. The principle is, that " where a man covenants to do an act, and he does an act which may be converted to a completion of this covenant, it shall be supposed that he meant to complete it." Here the land was in the particular county specified. The case of Lechwre v. Lechmere seems to be exactly in point ; and upon that case (the principles of which I coincide in) I shall declare this estate to be subject to the trusts of the settlement. [1671 LAWES verses BENNETT. At the Rolls, Sir Lloyd Kenyon. 1.5, 1785. Marston v. For, 1838, 8 A. & E. 63 ò Lord v. Colvin, 1867, L. t...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Low Gim Har v Low Gim Siah
...Franklin's Selfserve Pty Limited v Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia (1970) 125 CLR 52 (refd) Lawes v Bennett (1787) 1 Cox 167; 29 ER 1111 (not folld) M'Arthur's Executors v Guild [1908] SC 743 (refd) Macaura v Northern Assurance Company, Limited [1925] AC 619 (refd)......
- Nicol v Chant
-
Miley v Carty
... ... Lawes v. Bennett, 1 Cox Ch. Cas. 167; Weeding v. Weeding, 1 J. & H. 424; and Mooney v. M'Mahon, [1911] 1 I.R. 125, applied. Drant v. Vause, 1 Y ... ...
-
River Doree Holdings Ltd Appellant v Attorney General of St. Lucia Respondent [ECSC]
...has been exercised. 52 InInre Marlay [1915] 2 Ch 26419 Lord Cozens-Hardy MR cited with approval the earlier decision of Lawes v Bennett 201 Cox 16720 that the property was converted from the date of the exercise of the option and not the date of the grant of the option. That the sub-clause ......