Mumma, the Widow, and Others the younger Children of Jacob Mumma, Plaintiff's; Jacob Mumma, the eldest Son and Heir, Defendant
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1687 |
| Date | 01 January 1687 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 23 E.R. 622
LORD CHANCELLOR.
[19] de terming pasch^, 1687, in curia cancellari*. Case .12.-mumma, the Widow, and others the younger Children of jacob MuMMA, Plaintiff's; jacob mumma, the eldest Son and Heir, Defendant. Lord Chancellor. April 1687. [1] Eq. Ca. Ab. 382, pi. 8, S. C. A purchase by the father in the name of his infant son, decreed to be an advancement, and not a trust. Jacob Mumma the father, purchased a copyhold tenement in the name of the defendant his eldest son, an infant of about eleven years old: The father afterwards laid out 400 in improvements, paid the purchase-money, and all the fines, and enjoyed during his life; and having surrendered to the use of his will, devised the same 2VERK 20. MTTMMA V. MtJMMA 623 to his wife for life, and afterwards to the other plaintiffs his younger children; and made other provisions for the defendant; who having recovered in ejectment, the bill was to be relieved against it; for that the defendant was but a trustee for his father in the purchase. But the Lord Chancellor conceived, that he being but an [20] infant (1) at the time of the purchase, though the father did enjoy during his life, that the purchase was an advancement for the son, and not a trust for the father.(2) (1) Blinkhorn v. Feast, 2 Vez. 27; but see King v. Df.nison, 1 V. & B. 275, in which it is said arg. that the principal case is not satisfactory. (2) The decree was, whereupon, &c., " His Lordship declared that he was fully " satisfied.the defendant Jacob (at the time of the premises being purchased) was the " very person admitted tenant thereto by the rod, andjhad the legal estate, and that Jacob "the father did pay for the purchase of the premises in question for the defendant " Jacob's advancement, and not for himself; and that Jacob the father, had no power " to make any surrender of, or to bequeath the said premises, and therefore dismissed " the plaintiff's bill." Reg. Lib. 1686, B. fol. 478. Vide the Cases on purchases by the father in the name of the child, or in the joint names of himself and his child fully stated by Mr. Cox in his note to Lamplugh v. Lamplugh, 1 P. Wms. 112. [The pre sumption in favour of the child arises only as a circumstance of evidence, and may be rebutted by contrary evidence, Dyer v. Dyer, 2 Cox, 92. Murless v. Franklin, 1 Swan. 13 ; if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v Denison
...not to make them Trustees ; corresponding with the general Doctrine of this Court : Taylor v. Taylor (1 Atk. 386), Mumma v. Mumma (2 Vern. 19 ; and see Mr. Raithby's Note), Lampleigh v. Lampleigh (1 P. Wms. 112 ; and see Mr. Cox's Note), and Blinkhorn v. Feast (2 Ves. Sen. 27. See 30). This......
-
Withers v Withers and Others
...to evidence of his intention to take for his own benefit, 1 Swanst. 17. But see contra, Taylor v. Taylor, 1 Atk. 368. Mumma v. Mumma, 2 Vern. 19. Lampugh v. Lampugh, 1 P. W. 112. Redington v. Bedington, 3 Ridg. P. 0. 106. See Grey v. Grey, 2 Swanst. 600. Stileman v. Ashdown, 2 Atk. 480.-A p......
-
Dyer v Dyer
...following cases were cited, and very particularly commented on. Smith v. Baker, 1 Atk. 385. Taylor v. Taylor, 1 Atk. 386. Mumma v. Mumma, 2 Vern. 19. Howe v. Howe, 1 Vern. 415. Anon. 2 Freem. 123. Benger v. Drew, 1 P. W. 781. Dickenson v. Shaw, before the Lords Commissioners in 1770. Bedwel......
-
Trust and Trustees
...the Father, though he enjoyed it during his Life; for the Son was but an Infant at the Time of the Purchase. Pasch. 1687, Mumma and Mumma, 2 Vern. 19. Vide Baylis v. Newton, 2 Vern. 28. 9. A Man bought Copyhold Lands of the Nature of Borough English, in the Name of his eldest Son, but there......