Mosey v Mosey and Barker
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1955 |
| Court | Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division |
Husband and Wife - Maintenance - High Court - Divorce - Death of husband - Order for secured provision for wife and child - Death of husband before real property agreed - Order enforceable against executor - Executor not entitled to vary -
On the dissolution of a marriage an order was made securing an annual sum for the maintenance of the wife for her life
and further securing, in the same terms, a gross sum to be secured to her for the benefit of the child of the marriage“upon part of the real property [of the husband] to be agreed or to be referred to the district registrar in default of agreement”
The husband having died before the security had been specified the wife applied to enforce the order against the sole executor of the husband who sought by a cross-application to vary the order by deleting so much of it as related to the gross sum to be secured for the child of the marriage:—
Held, that as the order laid down what was to be done and how it was to be done the maxim certum est quod certum reddi potest applied thus creating an enforceable claim to which section 1 (1) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, was applicable.
With regard to the cross-application the right of a wife to apply for the exercise of the court's discretionary powers to grant or increase secured maintenance and the right of a husband's executor similarly to apply to extinguish or diminish that maintenance must stand on an equal footing as constituting claims which could be enforced against or by a personal representative of a deceased spouse by virtue of section 1 (1) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934. Neither of them constituted such claims, and the executor could not, therefore, succeed.
Semble. The effect of the words of the order “part of the real property,” taken in conjunction with the fact that the registrar on making the order had before him a list of the husband's real property, was to create a pool of property from which the wife had a right to have a selection made, and thus to operate in equity to give a general charge upon the whole of the real property until the selection had been made.
SUMMONS (adjourned into court).
On December 7, 1951, the wife obtained a decree nisi against the husband on the cross-prayer of her answer on the ground of his adultery and cruelty. On January 25, 1952, the decree was made absolute. On December 23, 1952, Mr. Registrar Grindal Gray, at Scarborough, on the wife's application, made an order under sections 19 and 26 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950, that
“Cecil William Mosey do secure to Irene May Mosey for her life, until further order, as from the date of the decree absolute herein, to wit, the 25th day of January, 1952, the annual sum of £300 upon part of the real property of the said Cecil William Mosey to be agreed or to be referred to the district registrar in default of agreement and that in default of agreement between the parties as to the form of deed it be referred to conveyancing counsel of the High Court to settle the necessary deed or deeds.
“And it is further ordered that the said petitioner do secure to the said respondent the gross sum of £750 for the benefit of Michael Sydenham Mosey the child of the marriage on part of the real property of the said petitioner to be agreed or referred to the district registrar in default of agreement and that in default of agreement between the parties as to the form of deed it be referred to conveyancing counsel of the High Court to settle the necessary deed or deeds.
“And it is further ordered that the said petitioner do pay or cause to be paid to the said respondent until the said Michael Sydenham Mosey shall attain the age of twenty-one years or until further order as from the date of decree absolute maintenance at and after the rate of £80 per annum less tax such sum to be payable monthly …”
Between January 14, 1953, and March 25, 1953, correspondence passed between the solicitors of the respective parties with a view to agreeing which properties of the husband should be selected to constitute the security, but they failed to reach agreement. On March 31, 1953, the husband died. The net value of his estate as sworn for probate was £44,418, including real estate sworn at £25,581.
On June 9, 1954, the wife issued a summons applying to enforce the order of December 23, 1952, against the sole executor of the husband. The application was contested and by a cross-application contained in a summons of July 27, 1954, the executor sought a modification of the order by omitting the provision made for the child.
Ifor Lloyd Q.C. and Geoffrey Crispin for the wife.
Viscount Hailsham Q.C. and Norman Stogdon for the executor.
SACHS J., reading his judgment, referred to the nature of the order and to the facts, and continued: The question raised by the application is whether the order can be enforced against the sole executor of the husband or whether the death of the husband results in the wife having as from that date no rights under the order.
There are two decisions since the enactment of the
In that case Hodson J. distinguished “the right to ask the court to exercise discretionary powers” from “having an enforceable claim.” He instanced an order for costs made against a party in his lifetime as constituting an enforceable claim kept alive by the Act of 1934 even where taxation had not yet taken place, and in this behalf referred to his decision in Richards v. Richards and Flockton.F3 Formerly the order for costs would have ceased to have effect on the death of a party to the proceedings: Coleman v. Coleman and Simpson.F4
The second decision was that of Barnard J. in Hyde v. Hyde.F5 There an order had been made for an annual sum to be secured “upon security to be agreed” and before the death of the husband agreement had been reached as to the security to be provided, but no deed had been executed. Mr. Upjohn Q.C., having established that by virtue of the order an equitable charge arose as soon as the security was agreed, Barnard J. rested his decision on the fact that the wife had acquired a charge on agreed specific property and directed the executors to execute the necessary deeds. He thus had no need to consider and did not refer to that branch of Mr. Upjohn's argument that was founded on Richards v. Richards and Flockton.F6
Lord Hailsham's main and much pressed argument was that the court has here no jurisdiction to deal with a matter arising in a divorce suit after the death of one of the parties...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abdul Aziz bin Mohamed Yatim v Rubiah bte Rahmat
...14 I turn then to consider the cases cited by Mr Mohamed Hashim in support of his position. The first of these is Mosey v Mosey and Barker [1956] P 26 (“Mosey”). There, an order was made against the husband, upon the dissolution of a marriage, securing an annual sum for the maintenance of t......
-
Dewitt v Dewitt
...respondent. Cases cited: (1) Baker v. Baker (No. 2), [1997] 1 FLR 148; [1997] 2 FCR 249; [1997] Fam. Law 163, applied. (2) Mosey v. Mosey, [1956] P. 26; [1955] 2 W.L.R. 1118; [1955] 2 All E.R. 391, distinguished. (3) Wight v. Wight, 2006 CILR 416, dicta of Taylor J.A. applied. Legislation c......
-
Nafisa Hasan v Mahmud Ul-Hasan (Deceased)
...under an order already made against a man before his death: see ( Hyde v Hyde [1948] 1 All ER 3621 and ( Mosey v Mosey & Barker [1955] 2 All ER 391). It must be noticed, however, that the sub-section only applies to causes of action “subsisting against” the deceased on his death. This mean......
-
Purse v Purse
...and payment of the wife's costs out of the fund in court. 23 After the 1934 Act came into force the position was slightly eased. In Mosey v. Mosey arid Barker, (1956) P.26 Sachs J. (as he then was) rejected the submission made on behalf of the executor that there was no jurisdiction to dea......
-
Form and Types of Order
...v Hyde, [1948] P 198. 206 Barker v Barker, [1952] P 184 (Eng CA). 207 Maclurcan v Maclurcan (1897), 77 LT 474 (Eng CA); Mosey v Mosey, [1956] P 26; Richardson’s Will Trusts v Llewellyn-Evans’ Trustees, [1958] Ch 208 F v F, [1967] 2 All ER 660. 209 Switzer v Switzer (1969), 1 RFL 262 (Alta C......
-
Saving Samuel Huntington and the Need for Pragmatic Civil–Military Relations
...of ‘‘scientism’’ requiringa new faith in a universal ‘‘social ethic’’ (Abrahamsson, 1972, pp. 162–163; Gal-braith, 1969, pp. 32–33; Whyte, 1956, pp. 26–27). ‘‘Politically neutral’’ principles toguide human behavior were being developed to allow government and corporations398 Armed Forces & ......
-
The Export of Electoral Systems
...p. 21. Administration, vol. v (1953), p. 134. on a new method of electing a District Council for Rungwe District. ibid., vol. viii (1956), p. 26. of Native Authorities in Tanganyika’, ibid., vol. iii (1951), p. 21. 5540.5.3 ...
-
Western Politics and the 1956 Elections
...with somejustice, for what is assumed to be the slow destruction of the individual mind." Edi-torial, Saturday Review, XXXIX (November 17, 1956), p. 26. 90in Congress in the hands of their party workers. In Washington the Langliemanagers produced and distributed the &dquo;Myth that is Magnu......