Peacock v Monk
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1750 |
| Date | 01 January 1750 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 28 E.R. 123
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Downes v. Timperon, 1828, 4 Russ. 335; Field v. Moore, 1855, 7 De G. M. & G. 703; Edward v. Cheyne (No. 2), 1888, 13 App. Cas. 398.
2 VES. SEN. 190. PEACOCK V. MONK 123 [190] peacock v. monk, Feb. 27, 1750-1. [See Downes v. Timperon, 1828, 4 Euss. 335; -Field v. Moore, 1855, 7 De G. M. & G. 703; Edward v. C%n ? (No. 2), 1888, 13 App. Cas. 398.] S. G. 1 Ves. sen. 127.-Baron and Feme. Wife, having specific effects to her separate use, disposes of her separate property by will. After her death, her husband sells part of these effects, and dies : his representative is accountable to the wife's administratrix with the will annexed. (Vide Supplement, p. 323.) Account of wife's separate estate, or pin-money, never carried back beyond the year. (Vide 2 Ves. sen. 7.) A wife may dispose of her separate personal estate by act in her life-time, or by will. As to her real estate, all that is not properly conveyed descends to her heir : and no part of it is bound by any bare agreement, in so far as respects her heir. (Vide Lord Hardwicke, though laying down the rule generally thus, suggests a possible exception, pages 191, 192.) As to the execution of powers by Femes Covertes (see p. 181, et vide Wright v. Lord Cadogan. 1 Bro. P. C. 486, octavo edit, and 156, folio edit. Vide 1 Fonb. Tr. Eq. 91, &c.). Said, that if a feme covert borrows money on the security of her separate estate, her declarations as such debtor, may be read in evidence. (See nevertheless. Whistler v. Newman, 4 Ves. 129, and Hyde v. Price, 3 Ves. 437.) Account of pin-money never carried back beyond the year.-[Supplement, 323.] Mrs. Lestock having purchased a real estate in a house in the life of her husband, Admiral Lestock, and devised it in his life, the question was, whether it could pass thereby, she being a feme covert at making her will and her death 1 Another question was, as to an account prayed of what she received out of her husband's estate 1 Lord Chancellor. As to the account prayed, there is no difference between the case of a wife who has a separate estate of her own by agreement before marriage, and a wife who has not, as to an account sought of money come to the hands of the wife during coverture; that is in general; for I do not say, but a case may be made for that: and it would be difficult, especially in the case of a seafaring man who left every thing to his wife's management, if there should be such a difference ; for it is common, that by agreement between...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Field v Brown
...It was so determined in Wright v. Lord Cadogan (2 Eden, 239), upon review of the doubt expressed by Lord Hardwicke in Peacock v. Monk (2 Ves. sen. 190). It is observed, however, that every passage in the judgment in IVright v. Lord Codec/an (2 Eden, 239), which has reference to this subject......
-
Johnson v Sturgis
...Again, there are very many cases, of which Norton v. Turaill (2 P. Wms. 144); Stanford v. Marshall (2 "Atk. 68); Peacock v. Monk (2 Ves. sen. 190); Hulm-e v. Tenant (1 Bro. 0. C. 15 ; and see ante, p. 502, note (2)); Dillon v. Grw.e (2 Sch. & Lef. 456); Heathy v. Thomas (15 Yes. 596 ; and s......
-
Bowyer v Blair
...1 B. & Ad. 189. Doe d. Pell v. JeyesENR 1 B. & Ad. 593. Ridout v. PainENR 3 Atk. 493. Doe v. Scott 3 M. & Sel. 300. Peacock v. MonkENR 2 Ves. Sen. 190. Doe v. JonesENR 10 B. & C. 459. WILL CONSTRUCTION OF FEE-SIMPLE ESTATE ESTATE FOR LIFE POWERS. 149 QUEEN'S BENCH. Monday, November 12th. WI......
-
Lechmere v Brotheridge
...be wholly destroyed by the unavailing protection afforded by the Court under the separate use clause. He also relied on Peacock v. Monk (2 Ves. sen. 190); Field v. Moore (19 Beav. 176 ; 7 De G-. M. & G. 691); Churchill v. Dibben (9 Sim. 447, n.); Crofts v. Middleton (8 De G. M. & G-. 192 ; ......