Mews v Mews
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 March 1852 |
| Date | 17 March 1852 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 643
ROLLS COURT
See Grant v. Grant. 1865, 34 Beav. 627; Parker v. Lechmere, 1879, 12 Ch. D. 260.
[529] mews ij. mews. March 16, 17, 1852. [See Grant v. Grant, 1865, 34 Beav. 627 ; Parker v. Ledtme -e, 1879, 12 Ch. D. 260.] A gift may be made by a husband to his wife, which, though bad in law, will be supported in equity. Though the property does not pass at law, yet, in equity, a husband, being the legal owner, may become a trustee for his wife, and if by clear and irrevocable acts he has made himself a trustee, the gift to his wife will be conclusive. To constitute a gift between husband and wife, there must either be a clear irrevocable gift to a trustee for the wife, or some clear and distinct act of the husband, by which he divested himself of his property, and engaged to hold it as a trustee for the separate use of his wife. If a man were to deposit money with bankers, directing them to hold it for his wife, that would probably be sufficient. A farmer's wife, with his knowledge and sanction, deposited the produce of the surplus butter, eggs, and poultry with a firm in her own name, and he called it " her money." On his deathbed he gave his executor directions to remove the money, and do the best he could with it for his wife. Held, that the evidence was not sufficient to establish a gift between them, and that the husband had neither made the firm nor himself trustees for his wife. William Mews (deceased), carried on the business of a fanner, with his brother John Mews (a bachelor), at Apton Hall,"in Essex, where they resided together, having one joint establishment. William attended principally to the farming, and exclusively to the accounts, acting as cashier; John devoted himself to the stock and sales; and the Plaintiff Harriet Mews, the wife of William, kept the house and superintended the management and sale of the butter, eggs, and poultry. It appeared that in 1835 the Plaintiff, Harriet Mews, placed in the hands of Messrs. Eastman & Hill, a sum of £90, at interest, and they opened a separate account [530] in her name in their books. This sum was afterwards increased by addition from the produce of the butter, eggs, and poultry, and ultimately amounted to £557, 8s. On the death of William Mews, family misunderstandings arose. John Mews, the surviving partner, laid claim to the £557, 8s. in the hands of Messrs. Eastman & Hill, and obtained payment thereof by carrying it over to the credit of the account of William and John Mews. William Mews died in 1846, and his son Henry Mews was his personal representative. 644 MEWS V. MEWS 1BBEAV. 531. John Mews died in 1850, and Henry Mews, together with the two other Defendants, were his representatives. In 1851 Harriet Mews, the widow of William Mews, instituted this suit against the representatives of John Mews, alleging the following case :-" That in that part of Essex in which the farm was situate, it was the custom that all profit arising from the sale of butter, eggs, and poultry should belong to the wife...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Nagapushani v Nesaratnam and Another
-
Talbot v Cody
...14 Sim. 186. Howard v. OakesENR 3 Exch. 143. Lucas v. LucasENR 1 Atk. 270. Vandenberg v. PalmerENR 4 K. & J. 204. Mews v. MewsENR 15 Beav. 529. Grant v. GrantENR 34 Beav. 624. Richards v. RichardsENR 2 B. & Ad. 447. Wheatly v. ParrENR 1 Keen. 551. Smith v. WardENR 15 Sim. 56. Fowkes v. Pasc......
-
Grant v Grant
...the [624] Plaintiff, cited Lucas v. Lucas (1 Atk. 270); Northey v. Nwthey (2 Atk. 77); Graham v. Lomlonderry (3 Atk. 393); Mews v. Mews (15 Beav. 529) ; Tipping v. Tipping (1 Peere, W. 729); Jervoise v. Jervoise (17 Beav. 566). Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Kay, for the Defendant, cited M'Lean v. Long......
-
Booth v Booth (1935) 53 CLR 1; 8 ALJ 460; [1935] ALR 183; Rabaul Times 28/6/1935; [High Court Files: 14/1934]. For decision of Wanliss CJ in the Central Court of New Guinea see Rabaul Times 16/6/1933 and 8/12/1933
...intention that they should be her separate estate (Slanning v Style (1734) 3 P Wms 334, at p. 337; 24 ER 1089, at p. 1090; Mews v Mews (1852) 15 Beav 529; 51 ER 643; Ex parte Whitehead; In re Whitehead (1885) 14 QBD 419), even if the Married Women's Property Act does not apply to New Guinea......