Lyons v Blenkin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1820 |
| Date | 01 January 1820 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 37 E.R. 842
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Andrews v. Salt, 1873, L. R. 8 Ch. 640; In re Plomley, 1882, 47 L. T. 284; In re Agar-Ellis, 1883, 24 Ch. D. 334; In re Scanlan, 1888, 40 Ch. D. 208.
lyons v. blenkin. Feb. 28, March 1, April 15, 1820; June. 4, Aug. 28, 1821. [See Andreios v. Salt, 187.'!, L. R. 8 Gh. 640 ; In re Plomley, 1S82, 47 L. T. 284 ; In re Agar-Ellis, 1883, 24 Ch. D. 334 ; In re. Scanlan, 1888, 40 Ch. D. 208.] Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery to controul the authority of a father over his infant children. Application of a father, praying that his children might be delivered up to him. by an aunt, who was guardian of their fortunes, with a discretionary trust for their maintenance, and with whom he had permitted them to reside for a long time, refused under the circumstances. Mary Beatson by her will dated in May 1815 gave to her daughter Mary Bnrnham, amongst other things, a moiety of a freehold estate, the other moiety of which she gave to her three grand-daughters, Mary Lyons, Frances Lyons, and Jane B. Lyons in fee, [246] as tenants in common, and she declared that her daughter Mary Burnham should during her life have the sole and separate management of this estate. She devised other lands and gave pecuniary legacies to each of her three grand-daughters respectively, directing the legacies to be paid to them by her executrix on their attaining twenty-one, with benefit of survivorship between them in the event of dying under that age unmarried. The residue of her real and personal estate she gave to her daughter Mary Burnham. The testatrix then empowered her daughter Mary Burnham, during the minority of her grand-children, to receive the rents, issues, and annual proceeds of their respective shares, and to pay and apply such part thereof as to her should seem reasonable and proper, towards their maintenance and education ; and the surplus, if any, of the annual proceeds, she directed to be invested in real securities, in order that it might accumulate for their benefit. She declared that the receipts of her daughter Mary Burnham were to be sufficient discharges, and then proceeded thus : " But in case my said daughter Mary Burnham shall happen to die during the minority of any of my said grand-children, then and in such case, I appoint S. Park of, &c., guardian to my said grand-children during their respective minorities, and I entrust to her the management and disposition of the estate and effects hereinbefore bequeathed to them, in like manner as ia hereinbefore expressed and declared with respect to my said daughter Mary Burnham. I appoint my said daughter Mary Burnham, sole executrix of this my last will and testament, and also guardian of all my said grand-children." The testatrix died inMarch 1816. Her three grand-children (the infant Plaintifl's) were the issue of the marriage of Jymes Lyons with one of her daughters, [247] who died in the year 1809. The father /. Lyons was still alive. In the year 1805 the testatrix having offered to maintain and provide for the eldest of the infants, she had been committed to her care ; and on the death of the mother in 1809, the other two children were also placed by their father with the testatrix. They continued till the time of her death to reside with her at her house near Hull (excepting when occasionally absent upon visits to their father, or at school), and the expences of their education were defrayed by her. Their father J. Lyons had in the mean time married again. After the death of the testatrix, the infants continued to reside in the same manner under the care of their aunt Alary Burnham ; in February 1819 she married the Defendant Blenkin. By provisions in her marriage settlement, she reserved to herself the management of the infants and their fortunes. About this time differences arose between her and J. Lyons : he required that his daughters should be delivered up to him, and called for accounts of their fortunes, and in November 1819,'filed a bill in their name, as their next friend, against the Defendants Blenkin and his wife, praying the accounts, and insisting that his daughters ought to be placed under his care ; and that not being of ability to maintain them, a proper sum JACOB, 248. LYONS V. BLENKIN 843 should be allowed to him for that purpose. In Hilary term 1820 he obtained upon an ex, parte motion in the cause, a writ of habeas corpus directed to the Defendants to bring up the bodiea of the infants. (Reg. Lib. B. 1819, fol. 208.) To this writ the Defendants made a return, certifying that the infants were detained by, and were under the protection of the Defendant Mary Burnham, for the purpose of their being educated [248] and maintained by her as their guardian, under the will of their grand-mother Mary Beatson deceased, and according to the trusts and directions for those purposes contained in her will. Affidavits were filed in support of the return, and on the part of J. Lyons against it. It appeared that the father J. Lyons was a dissenting minister ; he was formerly a baptist, but had some years before become an Unitarian. He resided at Chester, and had no regular employment, having resigned the situation of minister to a congregation at that place. His income was stated to consist of about £400 per annum. chiefly arising from the property of his second wife. The infants were of the respective ages of 19, 14, and 12; they had been educated by their aunt in the baptist persuasion, which she and her husband professed. In a letter written by them, and in an affidavit made by one of them, they expressed strongly their desire to continue with the Defendants. It was represented that their father's home could not become a comfortable residence for them. Some imputations were thrown out by each party against the other, which were met on both sides by testimonials of respectability and good character. Mr. Hart and Mr. Spence for J. Lyons. No ground is made out for depriving the father of his natural right to the custody of his children. His moral and religious character is proved to stand high. There is, therefore, no objection to him on that head on which the Court has sometimes interfered in former cases. As father he has the right of exercising his own discretion as to the residence and the mode of education of his children, and the motives that have influenced his discretion in this instance are extremely natural. He was willing that they should enjoy the benefit of living with [249] their grand-mother ; it being her desire, and her large property rendering the prospect advantageous to them : he did not object to their continuing with their aunt until her marriage, but not having equal confidence in her husband, he thinks it necessary for their happiness that they should return to the roof of their natural protector. It is asserted that the children themselves prefer their present abode ; what their real and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Goldsmith v Sands
-
Kimberly Isherwood v The Welsh Ministers
... ... In support of its existence they rely on: Blackstone's Commentaries, 17 th ed. (1830), vol.1, chapters 16 and 17 ; Lyons v Blenkin (1821) Jacob 245 , 38 ER 842 ; Agar-Ellis v Lascelles (1878) 10 Ch D 49 ; Re Scanlan (1888) 40 Ch D 200 ; Barnardo v McHugh ... ...
-
V.L. v. D.L., (2001) 293 A.R. 104 (CA)
...B.C.L.R.(2d) 357 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 30]. Johnstone v. Beattie (1843), 8 E.R. 657 (H.L.), consd. [para. 33]. Lyons v. Blenkin (1820), 37 E.R. 842 (Ch.), refd to. [para. Whitfield v. Hales (1806), 33 E.R. 186 (Ch.), refd to. [para. 34]. R. v. De Manneville (1804), 102 E.R. 1054 (K.B.)......
-
Hill v Gomme
...to the Plaintiff, have enforced the contract against the father, and have prevented him interfering with the Plaintiff. Lyons v. Blenkin (Jacob, 245). As to the third objection, that this was the purchase of a reversionary interest by a father for his child, and was as much an advancement f......
-
Family Law
...affected thereby. 52 Despite the different faiths or degree of religious commitment of the 47 Lyons v. Blenkin (1823), Jacob 245, 37 E.R. 842; Re McGrath , [1893] 1 Ch. 143 (C.A.); Sullivan v. Fox (1984), 38 R.F.L. (2d) 293 (P.E.I.S.C.); Harvey v. Lapointe , above note 44; Moseley v. Mosele......
-
Family Law
...43 Moseley v. Moseley , above note 40. 44 White v. White (1990), 28 R.F.L. (3d) 439 (B.C.S.C.). 45 Lyons v. Blenkin (1823), Jacob 245, 37 E.R. 842; Re McGrath , [1893] 1 Ch. 143 (C.A.); Sullivan v. Fox (1984), 38 R.F.L. (2d) 293 (P.E.I.S.C.); Harvey v. Lapointe , above note 42; Moseley v. M......
-
Family Law
...30 Moseley v. Moseley, above note 27. 31 White v. White (1990), 28 R.EL. (3d) 439 (B.C.S.C.). 32 Lyons v. Blenkin (1823), Jacob 245, 37 E.R. 842; Re McGrath, [1893] 1 Ch. 143 (C.A.); Sullivan v. Fox (1984), 38 R.EL. (2d) 293 (P.E.I. S.C.); Harvey v. Lapointe (1988), 13 R.EL. (3d) 134 (Que. ......