Phipps v Lord Ennismore
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 February 1829 |
| Date | 04 February 1829 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 38 E.R. 754
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Knight v. Browne, 1861, 7 Jur. (N. S.) 894; 30 L. J. Ch. 649.
[131] phipps v. Lord ennismore. Nov. 8, 1827 ; Feb. 4, 1829. [See Knight v. Browne, 1861, 7 Jur. (N. S.) 894 ; 30 L. J. Gh. 649.] A. being tenant for life of certain premises, with a power of limiting a jointure to his wife, a settlement is executed on his marriage, by which he demises the lands, of which he was tenant for life, to trustees for a term of iiinety-iiine years, on trust to secure the payment of a yearly sum to his wife as pin-money during the coverture, and he limits a jointure to her after his death ; the same parties on the same day execute another instrument, by which A. covenants not to aell or incumber the lands comprised in the term, and it is declared, that, if he shall at any time sell or incumber them, or attempt so to do, the trustees of the term shall receive the rents and profits, and apply them, as they may think fit, for the maintenance and support of A. or his wife or children or issue : the covenant and this proviso are fraudulent and void as against a subsequent incuinbrancer of A.'s life estate. John Balders by his last will devised his manors, lands, and tenements in certain parishes in the county of Norfolk, subject to a term of 500 yeara, and the payment of certain annuities, to his son Charles Morley Balders and his assigns during his life, with power to limit or appoint them, or any part of them, for a jointure to a wife. The trusts of the term were to pay 100 a-year to Charles Morley Balders, till he attained the age of twenty-one, and then 200 a-year, till he attained the age of thirty ; and to raise a sum of 3000 and another sum of 2000 for the testator's daughter. Charles Morley Balders completed his thirtieth year on the 16th of April 1801. In 1803, previous to and in consideration of a marriage then intended between Charles Morley Balders and Mary Hare, a daughter of Lord Ennismore, an indenture, bearing date the 15th of January, was executed by Charles Morley Balders of the first part, Lord Ennismore and his daughter of the second part, and trustees of the third part, by which, after reciting that Lord Ennismore had paid 9200 to 4 BUSS. 132. PHIPPS V. ENNISMORE (LORD) 755 the trustees, it was declared that 6200, part of that sum, was to be paid to Haiders for his own use, and the remaining 3000, was to be invested in the public stocks, or on the security of the term of 500 years, upon certain trusts for the [132] husband and wife, and the issue of the marriage. By the same deed Charles M or ley Balder s demised the premises, of which he was tenant for life, to the trustees for a term of ninety-nine years, in order to secure the payment of 300 a-year as pin-money to Mary Hare, to her separate use during the joint lives of himself and her ; and he limited a jointure to her in the event of her surviving him. The same parties, on the same day, executed another indenture, by which (after reciting, that, inasmuch as doubts might be entertained with respect to the sufficiency of the term of 500 years as a security for the 3000, provision should be made, out of the surplus rents and profits of the premises, after payment of the 300 a-year to Mary Hare, for the eventual deficiency of that security by an extension of the trusts of the term of ninety-nine years, and that it was agreed that Charles Morley Balders should enter into engagements restraining himself from alienating, charging, or encumbering his life estate or interest in the premises), he, Charles Morley Balders, for himself, his heirs, &c., did covenant with Richard Viscount Bantry, Richard Hare, William Henry Hare, and John Jones (the trustees), their executors, administrators, and assigns, " that, in case the marriage should take effect, he should not nor would at any time during his life sell, mortgage, charge, or in any manner encumber the manor and premises in the indenture of even date therewith granted and demised, with any sum or sums of money, either annual or in gross, or in any other manner whatsoever ; and it was thereby agreed and declared between the parties, that, if he, Charles Morley Balders, should at any time sell...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooke v Pearson
...J. Ch. 179); Stonm- v. Gurwen (5 Sim. 264); Higyinson v. Kelly (1 Ball & B. 252); Ex parte Young (3 Madd. 124); Phipps v. Lord Ennismore (4 Russ. 131). The settlement is only good to the extent of the wife's jointure. Mr. Follett and Mr. Turner, for the mortgagees. Mr. E. Palmer and Mr. Eeg......
-
John Moore and Others, Plaintiffs, v Joseph Kelly, Christopher Moore, and Others, Defendants
...before Sir Ignatius J. O'Brien C., and Ronan and Molony L.JJ. (1) [1913] 1 I. R. 512. (1) [1913] 1 I. R. 512. (2) 3 De G. & J. 614. (3) 4 Russ. 131. (4) L. R. 11 Ch. D. 1. (5) 6 Sim. 31. (6) [1902] 2 Ch. 360. (7) 3 Coke, 121. (8) 6 H. & N. 849. (9) 17 Q. B. 723. (10) L. R. 1 Ch. App. 446. (......
-
The Act 11 & 12 Vic., c. 68, and of the Trusts of the Will and Codicil of THOMAS CASEY. v
...v. Holme 19 Ves. 88. In re Beahan 1 Sch. & Lef. 179. Gill v. Morgan Smy. 60. Hall v. Cooper Smy. 168. Phipps v. Lord EnnismoreENR 4 Russ. 131. Synge v. Synge Supra, p. 362. De Tastet v. SmithENR 1 Keen, 161. Parker v. GossageENR Tyr. & Gr. 105; S. C. 2 C. M. & R. 617. Biddlescombe v. BondEN......
-
Lester v Garland
...How can a settlement be said not to be made in contemplation of bankruptcy when it provides against it. Phipps v. Lord Ennismore (4 Russ. 131). In Higitibotliam v. Holme the money which the wife's father had covenanted to pay remained to be received; and the question was whether the husband......