Muggeridge v Stanton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 November 1859 |
| Date | 25 November 1859 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 45 E.R. 300
BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD CAMPBELL AND THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. 1 L. T. 144; 8 W. R. 69.
300 MUGGERIPGE V. STANTON 1DE 0. P. tc J. 107. [107] muggeridge v. stanton. Before the Lord Chancellor Lord Campbell and the Lords Justices. Nov. 25, 1859. [S. C. 1 L.^T. 144; 8 W. E. 69.]. By a post-nuptial settlement a wife settled savings of her separate estate upon trusts for herself and her husband successively for life, with remainder to their two sons, with a proviso that in the event of the death of either under twenty-five without issue, his share should go to the survivor. There was also a proviso that the husband or wife should be at liberty to add any part of the dividends to the sum invested, and that the sum to be so added should be subject to the like trusts as-the original fund. The wife invested in the names of the trustees, but without communicating the fact to them, various sums, arising partly irom accumulations of the dividends and partly from funds derived from other sources; and after the death of the husband, and of both of the sons, without issue, the executor of the survivor of the sons, instituted a suit to have the trusts of the settlement executed. Held, that it was not a sufficient defence on the part of the settlor as to the additions to the fund that she had invested them under a misapprehension as to the effect of the settlement; and, Held, that all the additions were subject to the trusts of it; and there not appearing sufficient probability of establishing in a cross-suit a case of mistake, the Court refused to give an opportunity to institute such a suit. This was an appeal from the decree of Vice-Chancellor Kindersley, declaring that the whole of certain invested funds were subject to the trusts of a post-nuptial settlement. [108] By an indenture dated the 29th of August 1816, and made between John Stanton, since deceased, and Sarah Stanton the Defendant, then his wife, of the first part, John Toms of the second part, and Samuel Brooke and Henry Hulbert of the third part, all such sums of money as John Stanton in right of his wife Sarah Stanton might become entitled to receive on account of the personal estate and effects of John Toms deceased were assigned to Samuel Brooke and Henry Hulbert for the separate use of Sarah Stanton for her life, and after her decease, in trust for John Stanton for life, and after the decease of the survivor, in trust for their children as they or the survivor of them should appoint, and in default of appointment, in trust for all the children who being a son or sons should attain the age of twenty-one years, or being, a daughter or daughters should attain that age or marry. By the indenture in question in the cause, which was dated the 30th of April 1836, and made between John Stanton and Sarah Stanton of the one part, and Richard Pugh and William Hicks of the other part, after reciting the before-stated indenture of the 29th of August 1816, that the fund subject to the trusts of that indenture then was £5916, 17s. lid. £3 per cent, consolidated Bank annuities; and that John Stanton and Sarah Stanton had issue of their marriage two children only,, viz., John Toms Stanton, then aged sixteen years, and William Stanton, then aged thirteen years; and that the Defendant Sarah Stanton not having occasion to expend the whole of the interest and dividends arising from such stock, the same had from time to time accumulated, and that there was then in her hands the sum of £2700, savings from her said interest and dividends as aforesaid; and that for the further and bette? provision for herself and also for the said John Stanton and her said two children, the Defendant Sarah Stanton, being desirous of investing the said sum of £2700 [109] in the purchase of Government stock, applied to the Defehdants-Eichard Pugh and William Hicks to become trustees of the stock so to be purchased, and which, with the consent of the said John Stanton, they had agreed to do, and to stand possessed thereof upon the trusts thereinafter declared ; and that the Defendants Eichard Pugh and William Hicks, at the request of the Defendant Sarah Stanton, had, on the day of the date of those presents, laid out and invested the said sum of £2700 in the purchase of £2938, 15s. 6d. £3 per cent, consolidated Bank annuities, and that the same was then standing in their names: it was witnessed that, in pursuance of the said agreement, and in order to make further provision for Sarah. Stanton, and after her decease for John Stanton and their said two sons, it was thereby agreed, and particularly Sarah Stanton, with the privity and consent of the said John Stanton, directed and appointed, that Eichard Pugh and William Hicks IDECKP.fcJ.llO. MUGGERIDGE V. STANTON 301 should stand possessed of the £2938, 15s. 6d. £3 per cent, consolidated Bank annuities, in trust to...
To continue reading
Request your trial