Marshall v Fowler
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 November 1852 |
| Date | 20 November 1852 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 774
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 16 Jur. 1128.
[249] marshall v. fowler. Nov. 20, 1852. [S. C. 16 Jur. 1128.] The whole of a fund to which the husband, in right of his wife, had become entitled, settled, as against his assignee, on the wife and children, the husband being in reduced and insolvent circumstances. A testator died in 1837, having bequeathed his residuary estate to one for life, with remainder to a class. In 1951 the tenant for life died, and Mrs. Marshall, the wife of John Marshall, then became, as one of the class, entitled to 468 consols, 550 three and a quarter per cents, and 1213 Reduced. She was also entitled (subject to the existing life interest of W. F.) to one-fifteenth of 4000 three and a quarter per cents. In 1838 and 1841 Mr. Marshall and his wife had assigned their interest in the residue to secure certain monies, which were now claimed by the Defendant Pierson. Mrs. Marshall filed this claim against the executors, Pierson and her husband, claiming to have the fund settled. [250] No settlement had ever been made on her; and her husband, who had formerly carried on the trade of a brewer, had since 1841 become utterly insolvent, and had no means of supporting his family, except through the bounty of his friends and casual employment as an accountant. They had six children, three under age. Mr. R. Palmer and Mr. Morris, for the Plaintiff, asked that the whole fund might be settled, the husband being insolvent, and unable to support his family. Mr. Pearson, for the Defendant Pierson, argued that the whole fund ought not to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncombe v Greenacre
...v. Sturgis, 22 Beav. 590; Lea v. t'/iitrc/t, 3 W. R. 603 ; Lloyd v. Mason, 5 Hare, 149; i%d v. Williams, 1 Madd. 455; Marshall v. fowfer, 16 Beav. 249; Murray v. Zwrf Elibank, 10 Ves. 84, 13 Ves. 1, and 14 Yes. 496; Napier v. Napier, 1 Dru. & War. 407 ; Pugh, Ex parte, 1 Drew. 202, 327 ; Sc......
-
Koeber v Sturgis
...Gor. 599); Gardner v. Marshall (14 Simons, 575); Francis v. Brooking (19 Beav. 347); lie Cutler (14 Beav. 230); [891] Marshall v. Fowler (16 Beav. 249), were cited. But see Tidd v. Lister (10 Hare, 140, and 3 De G. M. & G. 857). the master of the eolls [Sir John Eomilly], I do not think tha......
-
Taylor v Taylor & Others
...secured.’ 1Somner v. Anderson, March 2, 1871, ante, vol. ix. p. 594; Story on Equity Jurisprudence, sec. 1415; Marshall v. FowlerENR, 16 Beavan. p. 249; in re Cutler, 14 Beavan, p. 220; Duncombe v. GreenacreENR, 29 Beavan, p. 578; Newman v. WilsonENR, 31 Beavan, p. ...
-
Francis v Brooking
...cited In re Cutler (14 Beav. 220); Dunkley v. Dunkky (2 De G. Macn. & G. 390); Scott v. Sposhett (3 Macn. & G. 599); Marshall v. Fowkr (16 Beav. 249). Mr. E. Palmer and Mr. Karslake, for the Defendant Brooking. There are two classes of cases in which a wife's equity exteods to the whole of ......