Money v Money

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 May 1855
Date01 May 1855
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 61 E.R. 901

HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY

Money
and
Money

S. C. 3 Eq. R. 996; 3 W. R. 425.

Ward of Court. Marriage Settlement. Rectifying Deed.

[256] money v. monet. May 1, 1855. [S. C. 3 Eq. E. 996; 3 W, E. 425.] Ward of Court. Marriage Settlement. Rectifying Deed. Proposals of marriage with an infant ward of Court were made six months before her marriage, not being such as the Court would approve. The parties waited till her majority, and a few days after it a settlement was executed, pursuant to new proposals made a very short time before her majority. The terms of the settlement appeared to have been pursuant to the instructions, and, in fact, the work of the ward's mother, and were such as the Court would not have approved. Held, that the jurisdiction of the Court over the ward had not ceased, and the settlement was rectified, so as to be what the Court, looking at the position of the parties, would have made. The material facts of this case are fully detailed in the judgment. The bill was by Lady Money, formerly Miss Taylor, to reform a settlement made on her marriage with Colonel Money, afterwards Sir James Money. The principal question was whether the settlement, which was made only a few days after Lady Money's majority, she being, up to the time of attaining her majority, a ward of Court, was bond fide her own act, or the act of her mother; whether it was within the jurisdiction of the Court to control it, and whether (if it was) it was such a settlement as the Court would have directed 1 A minor question arose on the construction of a portion of the settlement. On the former question there was rather unsatisfactory and insufficient evidence, which is commented upon in the judgment; the following documents and evidence were relied on in the arguments, and are referred to in the judgment. The Exhibit (A) was the heads of agreement for a settlement originally proposed by Colonel Money on the 1st June 1811, about six months before the marriage. [257] "Mrs. Cape proposes to give her daughter so much as, with what she will be immediately entitled to under her father's will, will make up 7000 on her marriage, and therewith all other money which shall come to her from her own relations during her coverture, to be settled as follows :- " The interest to Major Money for life, then to Miss Taylor for life, and after the death of the survivor, the capital to be divided among the younger children of the marriage, as the parties shall jointly, or as the survivor shall appoint, and in default of appointment, equally; and in case there shall be no children of the marriage, the capital to go to the survivor of Major Money and Miss Taylor. Major Money's fortune consists of freehold estates, of which he is tenant for life, with remainder to his first and other sons in tail male, under the will of James Money, Esq., of Possford, in the county of Northampton, who died in June 1785, now let on old leases, at upwards of 3000 per annum, clear of some annuities to which the estates are subject." The Exhibit (C) was a modification of these proposals, which was made in December 1811, the marriage having been postponed in consequence of the parties not being able to obtain the sanction of a Master in Chancery to the first proposals. 903 MONEY 1?i MONEY 3 DKEWKY, 288. It was as follows;^*1 " ; ",;.-; "Anne Caroline Taylor's-fortune te :be made up by Major Cape, her father-in-law, on her marriage, or as :soon; after as can be, with Lieutenant-Colonel T, K. Money, to 7000, to be settled on herself and younger child or children : the interest of which sum to be left untouched.for accumulation, excepting the sum of 150 [258] per annum for her pin-iaoney^ "Also any money or monies that may devolve to her at her mother's death, and from, her own family connections, to be in the same manner settled on herself and younger child or children, and the interest to accumulate as already specified. But in the event of her dying without a daughter, or younger child or children, then the said sum of 7000, and any other money or monies that may devolve to her at her mother's death, and from her own family connections, to revert back to her four brothers and sister Harriet Cordelia, share and share alike, at the decease of LieutenankColoriel T. K. Money." ~'. After the marriage a petition was presented in a cause to the credit of which Miss Taylor's fortune stood, to have it paid ;out"1;6 the! trustees. That petition set forth the settlement, and recited that, under the will of Robert Taylor, and under decrees and orders in a suit of Taylor v. Cape, Miss Taylor was entitled to 3156, 10s. 4d. four per cents.; and under the will of W. James Innes, and certain orders in a suit Of Stenfiimse v. Mitchell, to the sum of 328, Os. Sd. three per ce'nts.; it recited that, on the treaty for the marriage, it was agreed that these sums "and such other sum or sums of money as she (MiSs Taylor) then was or would thereafter become .entitled to under the said first-mentioned cause in respect of her share of the residuary estate of the testator," her said father, and the dividends and interest due or to accrue due thereon^ but which had not yet been ascertained," should be settled in manner thereinafter mentioned; that Jane Cape (the mother) should make up all the said sums to 7000,iand all these sums were to be held on the trusts of the settlement. The settlement then vested these funds in the trustees ; [259] then there was a covenant by Jane Cape to make up the trust funds to 7000. The first, trust was to raise and pay 150 to Lady Money-for her separate use by way of pm-money;; it directed that the rest of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Biddles v Jackson
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 22 November 1858
    ...He referred to the following cases :-Austen v. Halsey (2 Sim. & St. 123, n.); Bail v. Coutta (1 Ves. & B. 300); Money v. Money (3 Drew. 256); Anne Walker's case (LI. & G. 323); Martin v. Foster (1 De G. M. & G. 98); Hobson v. Ferraby (2 Col. 412), and Longbottom v. Pearce, heard before the ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT