Owens v Dickenson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 December 1840 |
| Date | 21 December 1840 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 41 E.R. 407
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 4 Jur. 1151. See London Chartered Bank of Australia v. Lempriere, 1873, L. R. 4 P. C. 591; 9 Moo. P. C. (N. S.), 451; In re Poole's Estate, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 743; Pike v. Fitzgibbon, 1880, 14 Ch. D. 841; Robinson v. Pickering, 1881, 16 Ch. D. 663; In re Lady Hastings, 1887, 35 Ch. D. 97; In re Roper, 1888, 39 Ch. D. 490.
CB. te PH. . OWENS V. DICKENSON 407 [48] owens . dickenson. Dec. 18, 19, 21, 1840. [S. C. 4 Jur. 1151. See Lvndon Chartered Hank of Australia v. L/tmpriere, 1873, L. R. 4 P. C. 591; 9 Moo. P. C. (N. S.), 451; /n re Poole's Estate, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 743; Pike v. Fitzgibbm, 1880, 14 Ch. D. 841; Botinson v. Pickering, 1881, 16 Ch. D, 663; In re Lady Hastings, 1887, 35 Ch. D. 97 ; In re Roper, 1888, 39 Ch. D. 490.] The general engagements of a married woman are enforced by a Court of Equity against her separate estate, not as executions of a power of appointment, but on the principle that to whatever extent she has, by the terms of the settlement, the power of dealing with her separate property, she has also the other power incident to property in general, namely, the power of contracting debts to be paid out of it. Where a married woman whose real estate was settled, on her marriage, to such uses as she should, by any deed or instrument in writing, attested by one witness, or by her will, appoint, and in default of appointment, upon trusts for her sole and separate use for life, with remainder over, made her will, in pursuance of the power, and thereby charged her real estate with payment of her debts: It was held that this was a gpod charge on the real estate of all her written engagements; and semble, also of her debts generally, whether evidenced by writing or not. Held, also, that the proper form of a decree in a suit by a holder of her written engagement, on behalf of himself and all other creditors, for payment of their debts out of the real estate, was an inquiry what debts there were to be paid under the provisions of the will; and that the Plaintiff must, therefore, prove his debt over again before the Master. By a settlement, made in May 1824, on the marriage of Mary M'Grier, widow, with Hugh Jones, certain freehold messuages and hereditaments, the property of Mary M'Grier, were conveyed to two persons, to such uses as she should, by any deed or other instrument in writing, attested by one witness, or by her will, attested by three witnesses, from time to time appoint, and, in default of appointment, in trust to pay or permit her to receive the rents and profits thereof, for her life, to and for her sole and separate use and benefit, independent of her then intended husband, and after her death, to the use of Thomas M'Grier, her son by a former marriage, and his issue as therein mentioned, with remainder over. By the same settlement certain stock-in-trade, furniture, and other effects of Mary M'Grier were assigned to the same persons, in trust for her sole and separate use during her life, and after her death for the said Thomas M'Grier absolutely. Part of the property included in the settlement consisted of a freehold public-house, with the fixtures and furniture thereto belonging. [49] In September 1828 Mary Jones (formerly Mary M'Grier), having occasion lor the sum of £210 agreed with the Plaintiff (Moses Owens) that he should take the public-house as her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crofts v Middleton
...Bos. & P. 447); Roberts v. Lloyd (2 Beav. 376); Fortesme v. Burnett (3 Myl. & K. 36); Stead v. Nelson (1 Beav. 245); Owens v. Dickenson (Cr. & Ph. 48). Mr. W. M. James and Mr. Bevir, for Samuel Middleton, the heir at law of the testator and of Sophia Beale. The gift is a contingent remainde......
-
Johnson v Sturgis
...of his liability ; Heatley v. Thomas (15 Ves. 590); Bulljiin v. Clarke (17 Ves. 365); Hulme v. Tenant; (2) [503] Owens v. Dicke.nsim (Cr. & Ph. 48); Wright v. Chard (4 Drew. 673); Faughan v. Vamderstegen (2 Drew. 165); dice v. Oarew (1 J. & H. 199). Nor is the 3DEO.F. &J.B04. JOHNSON V. GAL......
-
Derbishire v Home
...(10 Beav. 418). Mr. Malins, Mr. Craig and Mr. Hoare, for Messrs. Hoare, the representatives of Sir H.. Oakes, cited Owens v. Dickenson (Cr. & Ph. 48), Ryder v. Bidcerton (3 Swanst. 80), Evans v. Bicknell (6 Ves. 174), Coltmatt v. Warren (cited in Cocker v. Quayle, 1 Euss. & My. 536), Ward v......
-
Gaston v Frankum
...(17 Ves. 365), Kenge v. Dehml (1 Ve'rn. 326), Hulne v. Tennant (1 B. C. C. 16), Murray v. Barlee (3 My. & K. 209), Owens v. Dickenson (Cr. & Ph. 48 ; and see Callmv v. Howie, 1 De G. & S. 534), Clinton v. Willis (1 Sugd. on Powers, 208), Stuart v. Lord KirTcwall (3 Madd. 387), Aguilar v. Ag......