Mawhood v Milbanke
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 April 1851 |
| Date | 24 April 1851 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 449
ROLLS COURT
[36] mawhood v. milbanke. April 24, 1851. A married woman, to whom a sum of money was payable for her separate use, received a cheque from the Accountant-General, and handed it over to her solicitor who accompanied her. The solicitor was on motion ordered to pay the balance to his client, and held, that the anus being on the solicitor to shew cause for not paying it over, he could not sut up a voluntary agreement to pay her husband's debt out it. Letitia Mawhood, the wife of Henry Mawhood, was entitled to a legacy payable on the death of Jane Parsons. In 1835 Henry Mawhood became bankrupt, and in 1845 Jane Parsons died, and the legacy then became payable, and was brought into Court. It was arranged between the assignees and Letitia Mawhood, that one moiety should be paid to the assignees, and the other to her for her separate use; and, Ly tui order made in [37] this cause in August 1848, the Accountant-General was directed to pay the sum of 287, 2s. 2d. for her separate use, and the other R iv.-15 450 MAWHOOD V. MILBANKE 15 BEAV. 38. moiety of the fund to the assignees of the husband. The gentleman who acted as solicitor for her and her husband accompanied her to the AccountankGeneral's office, when a cheque for the 287, 2s. 2d. was received by Letitia Mawhood, and by her banded over and retained by the solicitor. She afterwards received 105 from the firm acting as her solicitors, and gave a receipt as for the balance. It was now moved, on behalf of Letitia Mawhood, that the firm of solicitors might pay over the balance to her. The solicitors, in their defence, stated that in 1844 Henry Mawhood and wife had assigned the legacy to George Mawhood (the brother of Henry Mawhood, and a client of the solicitors) to secure 125, and that other sums, amounting to 64, were afterwards advanced by the solicitors to Henry Mawhood and wife, by the direction of George Mawhood. They stated that previously to receiving the money, it had been agreed between Mr. and Mrs. Henry Mawhood and George Mawhood, that upon Mrs. Mawhood and her family emigrating to Australia, the balance should be paid to her; but that if they did not, the amount of the security should be paid to George Mawhood. That George Mawhood, not having attended, as had been agreed, at the Accountant^General's office, the solicitors received the amount, and placed it to the credit of George Mawhood's account. That the emigration scheme...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bibby v Thompson
...in matters relating to officers of the Court, to direct that to be done which is asked by the petition. note.-See Mawhood v. Milbanke, 15 Beav. 36. English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 253 ROLLS COURT Bibby and Thompson See Newill v. Newill, 1871, L. R. 12 Eq. 436. [646] bibby v. thompson (No......