De Manneville v Crompton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 March 1813 |
| Date | 27 March 1813 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 35 E.R. 138
LINCOLN'S INN HALL.
See St. George v. Wake, 1833, 1 My. & K. 622; Taylor v. Pugh, 1842. 1 Hare, 613.
[354] de manneville v. crompton. Lincoln's Inn Hall. March 27,1813. [See Si. feorgre v. Wake, 1833, 1 My. & K. 622 ; Taylor v. P //i, 1842, 1 Hare, 613.] Marriage Settlement of personal Property in general Terms, " all Monies, Debts, "Bills, Bonds, Notes," &c. No Inference of Fraud from the Cancellation, during the Treaty, upon a fair, moral, Consideration, of a Note, the only Instrument of that Description : the Marriage not taking place upon a Representation of the Particulars or Amount. Discretion of Trustees, having Power to change Securities, but not without Consent, not controuled, unless mischievously and ruinously exercised. The Bill stated the Marriage of the Plaintiff on the 21st of April 1800, with Margaret Orompton ; and that by the Marriage Settlement, dated the 2d of April 1800, reciting, that Margaret Crompton was possessed of, or entitled to, a considerable personal Estate, Part whereof was secured to her by " Mortgages, Bonds, Notes, " and other Securities," and that it was proposed, that " all and singular the said " personal Estate of the said Margaret Crompton " should be assigned and vested in the Defendants Ann Crompton and Edmund Haworth upon the Trusts after mentioned, it was witnessed, that in Consideration of the said intended Marriage, &c., Margaret Crompton with the Consent of the Plaintiff assigned unto Ann Crompton and Haworth " All and singular the Monies, Debts, Bills, Bonds, Notes, and other " Securities for Money, Chattels real and other Chattels and personal Estate," of Margaret Crompton, to hold to such Uses, &c., as she should appoint, and for want thereof then for her sole and separate Use ; with limitations over, by which the Husband took a partial, contingent, Interest (see De Manneville v. De Manneville, 10 Ves. 52) ; and a Power to the Trustees, but not without the Consent in Writing of Mrs. De Manneville, to call in any of the Securities, and make Sale from Time to Time, and to re-invest the Money upon the same Trusts. The Bill farther stating, that among the Property to which Mrs. De Manneville was entitled, was a Pro-[355]-niisory Note for 2000 by her Mother Ann Crompton. the Trustee, for valuable Consideration, which Note had been cancelled and destroyed either by the Trustees, or Mrs. De Manneville, who had ceased to live with her Husband...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cookney v Anderson
...Court has power to interfere and controul such injurious exercise; Dashwood v. Lard BulMey (10 Ves. 230, 245); De Manneville v. Crmvpton (1 V. & B. 354); French v. Davidson (3 Mad. 396); Kekewidi v. Marker (3 Mac. & Gor. 311, 326, sqq.). The ground of the decision below was, that the interf......
-
St. George v Wake
...was supported against the husband on the ground that he had never inquired after the bequest, and another of De Mannemll-e. v. Crampton (1 V. & B., 354), where Lord Eldon held that the- husband could not be relieved against the voluntary giving up (for family reasons, which made it very fai......
-
Bagshaw v The Eastern Union Railway Company
...the elder, after the death of the wife, and not upon any previous knowledge of the Plaintiff. The case of De Manneville v. Crompton (1 V. & B. 354) was relied upon by the Vice-Chancellor, but it is clearly distinguishable from the present. (They also referred to Taylor v. Pugh (1 Hare, 608)......
-
Wrigley v Swainson
...has been no fraudulent concealment. The following eases were referred to Strathmore v. Bowes (2 Cox, 28), De Manneville v. Grompton (1 V. & B. 354), St. George v. Wake (1 M. & K. 610), England v. Downs (2 Beav. 522), and Taylor v. Pugh (1 Hare, 608). Mr. Eussell, in reply. the vice-chancell......