Potts v Surr
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 June 1865 |
| Date | 23 June 1865 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 745
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 13 W. R. 909.
[543] potts v. sure. June 7, 8, 23, 1865. [S. C. 13 W. R. 909.] A son attained twenty-one in 1855, and in 1857 he conveyed to his father his reversionary estate and interest, in consideration of moneys advanced for his commission, outfit and debts during his minority, and a further sum of 500 then advanced : Held, that the deed could not stand except as a security for the 500. The doctrine laid down in Hoghton v. Hoghton, 15 Beav. 278, adhered to. Transaction between father and son, seven years after the latter came of age, by which the father obtained a benefit of 5790 in the event of the son dying without children, supported; there being a valuable consideration on the part of the father, the settlement being a fit and proper family arrangement, and the transaction not having been impeached until after the death of the father. The facts of this case are fully stated in the judgment. It was argued by Mr. Southgate and Mr. George W. Collins, for the Plaintiff, who cited TweMell v. Tweddell (1 Turn. & E. 1); Hoghton v. Hoghton (15 Beav. 278); Carpenter v. Heriot (\ Eden, 338); Baker v. Bradley (7 De G. M. & G. 621). [544] Mr. Hobhouse and Mr. Pearson, for Mr. Surr. They cited Bellamy v. Sabine (2 Phill. 438); Stewart v. Stewart (6 Cl. & Fin. 911); Lawton v. Oa/iipim (18 Beav. 87). Mr. Everitt, for Reed. Mr. Colt, for the Plaintiff's brothers, referred to Petre v. Espinasse (2 Myl. & K. 496); Dimsdale v. Dimsdale (3 Drew. 566). Mr. Torriano, for the infant children. Mr. Southgate, in reply. June 23. the master OF the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. This is a suit seeking to set aside a deed dated the 26th February 1862, which the Plaintiff alleges he was induced to execute by the influence exercised over him by his father. In form, the bill prays relief in respect of two former deeds which I shall have occasion to mention, but, in truth, this is only ancillary to the relief asked in respect of the deed of February 1862, which is the only deed binding the Plaintiff', if the transaction relating to it be valid. If, however, this deed be declared to be invalid, then it will require a consideration to what extent the other deeds can be allowed to have any force or effect. Under the will of a gentleman of the name of John Bayley, who died in February 1827, and by reason of the determination of the previous estates, considerable [545] real and personal property were vested in trustees, which in the year 1855 were held in trust for George Potts, the father of the Plaintiff, for life, with remainder to the children of the said George Potts, and their heirs, executors and administrators, equally to be divided between them, to be vested interests on attaining twenty-one. Besides this, on the marriage in November 1828, of Mr. George Potts with the since deceased mother of the Plaintiff and by a settlement bearing date the 10th November 1828, 5000 consols were settled in trust for George Potts for life, and after his decease in trust for his wife for her life, and upon the decease of the survivor, in trust for the children of the marriage, as the husband and wife should jointly appoint, and in default as the survivor should appoint, and in default of any appointment equally between them. George Potts had three children, the Plaintiff George Edward B. Potts, who was the eldest, Walter Jeffery Potts the second son, and Charles Denis Potts the third son, who are both Defendants on this record. R. viii.-24* 746 POTTS V. SURR 84BEAV. B. Walter Jeffery Potts has married and has four children, who are also Defendants, by reason of the interest they are supposed to take under the instrument of February 1862, which is sought to be set aside. In 1855 the Plaintiff attained twenty-one, and in the latter end of 1856 the Plaintiff, being in embarrassed circumstances, applied to his father for assistance, which he consented to afford, on having an assignment of the Plaintiff's reversionary interest under the will of Mr. Bayley. This was assented to by the Plaintiff, and accordingly, by an indenture dated the 3d January 1857, and made between the Plaintiff of the first part, [546] George Potts of the second part, the Defendant suit of the third part, and two trustees of the fourth part, after reciting that George Potts had, in 1849, obtained from the Plaintiff a commission in Her Majesty's Navy, and whilst he continued in the Navy, viz., until the year 1854, when he left the service, had expended in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
English Influences on the Historical Development of Fiduciary Duties in Scottish Law
...used by the courts.107107Hoghton v Hoghton (1852) 15 Beav 278, 51 ER 545; Chambers v Crabbe (1865) 34 Beav 457, 55 ER 712; Potts v Surr (1865) 34 Beav 543, 55 ER 745; Turner v Collins (1871–72) LR 7 Ch App 329; Bainbrigge v Browne (1881) 18 Ch D 188; Luddy's Trustee v Peard (1886) LR 33 Ch ......