Price v Berrington
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 May 1849 |
| Date | 05 May 1849 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 68 E.R. 163
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. on appeal, 3 Mac. & G. 486; 42 E. R. 348.
[394] price -v. bebrington. Feb. 23, 24, March 7, May 5, 1849. [S. C. on appeal, 3 Mac. & G. 486; 42 E. E. 348.] A bill to set aside, on the ground of lunacy and fraud, a conveyance of an estate by a party claiming the fee-simple. The lunacy was established, but it appeared that the Plaintiff was only entitled to a life-estate in the property. Held, that the Plaintiff (and his personal representative after his death) was entitled to an account of the rents and profits during the life of the Plaintiff, as against the parties in possession under the conveyance. A bill was brought to set aside a deed of 1809, on the ground that the Plaintiff, the grantor, was of unsound mind. The Plaintiff was by inquisition found to have been lunatic, without lucid:intervals, from 1796. The Defendants alleged that, by a deed of 1805, the lunatic had settled the estate for himself and wife for their lives, and for the benefit of their children in remainder. The children were made parties to the suit, and disclaimed, and offered to convey any interest they might have as the Court should direct. Held, that this disclaimer and submission did not reinvest in the lunatic the interest which he would have had if the deed of 1805 had not existed, or entitle him to the relief which he might have had if the deed of 1805 had not been made.; but, in confining the decree to the interest which had been reserved to the lunatic, the Court declared that it should be without prejudice to the rights of the children. In a suit to set aside an appointment, on the ground ,of the unsoundness of mind of the appointor, who was the tenant for life of the estate, parties who would be entitled in remainder in default of appointment cannot, either by joining as Plaintiffs in a supplemental suit, or by offering in their answer to convey their interests for the Plaintiff's benefit, enable the Plaintiff to sustain the suit in respect of any relief beyond the duration of his own life-estate. On revivor by a party, who was both heir at law and administrator of a lunatic, in a suit to set aside a conveyance made by the lunatic of his estate, it was held that the Plaintiff had no title to the estate as heir at law, but that as administrator of the lunatic he was entitled to an. account of the rents and profits during the life of the lunatic. "Where an equitable interest in an estate has been conveyed by a person of unsound mind to a party taking without fraud or notice of the unsoundness of mind, and the case is one in which the deed would be void at law on the ground of the lunacy, equity will relieve against the conveyance by the lunatic. The Court will not direct an issue, unless the result of the issue must, in any event, be material. The Plaintiff in the original bill, filed in June 1836, was described as William Price, clerk, a person of weak mind, and incapable of managing his affairs, by Charles 164 PRICE V: BEEEINGTON 7 HARE, 395. Price, his eldest son and heir at law and next friend. The bill alleged that the Plaintiff had been in a state of imbecility and incapacity since 1789. That, in the year 1809, John Hodder Moggridge, knowing the fact of the Plaintiff's imbecility and incapacity, and in order to defraud the Plaintiff, induced him to execute an absolute conveyance in fee to him, the said Moggridge, of an estate called Tyr y Coed Cae, in Glamorganshire, of or to which the Plaintiff was theretofore seised or entitled in fee-simple in possession ; that Moggridge knew the consideration of 2000, expressed in the said conveyance, was very inadequate, and that the minerals in the estate rendered it of great value; and that the 2000 was not in fact paid, except in so far as Moggridge redeemed a mortgage for 600, previously existing upon [395] the property. The Defendants were the devisees and executors of Moggridge. The bill prayed that the conveyance of 1809 might be set aside, and the estate reconveyed ; an account of the rents and profits as against the personal representatives of Moggridge ; and the Plaintiff offered to repay the consideration money which had been paid by Moggridge. The answers stated several incumbrances made by the Plaintiff upon the property before the sale to Moggridge. The Defendants stated that, by deed of the 25th of November 1805, a term of 1000 years in the estate was assigned to secure a sum of money owing to one Jenkins, by way of mortgage, and, subject thereto, upon such trusts as the Plaintiff and his wife should appoint, and, in default of such appointment, to the Plaintiff for his life, with remainder to his wife for her life, remainder to the children of the Plaintiff and his said wife as tenants in common. The Defendants said that, by deeds of 5th and 6th of February 1809, made between the Plaintiff, William Price, and Mary, his wife, of the one part, and Moggridge of the other part?, and by a deed of the 7th of February 1809, made by the prior mortgagee and the parties to the two preceding deeds, the estate was, for the consideration of 2000, duly appointed and conveyed to Moggridge, his heirs and assigns ; that the balance of the consideration money was settled and paid to the Plaintiff in 1822; and that,, upon such payment, by a deed of release and confirmation, dated the 19th of March 1822, made between the said Charles Price, as the eldest son and heir-apparent of the Plaintiff, of the one part, and Moggridge of the other part, reciting the deeds of the 5th and 6th of February 1809 : that, at the time of the execution of the same, Charles. Price was a minor, by reason whereof he was not competent to join in or become party thereto with William Price and [396] Mary, his wife, for the assurance and confirmation of the said messuages, &c., thereby appointed to Moggridge; that Charles Price had since attained twenty-one, and had been requested by Moggridge to execute a release of all his right, title, estate and interest, if any, in the said premises, which he had consented to do : Charles Price granted, released and confirmed unto Moggridge, his heirs and assigns, all the estate, interest, claim, &c., at law or in equity, which he (Charles Price) had, or which he, his heirs, executors or administrators should have,, in respect of the said premises or otherwise, against Moggridge, his heirs, executors or administrators, from the beginning...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v Hooper
...(5 B. & C. 170); Kennedy v. Green (3 My. & K. 699). Mr. Bacon, for Mrs. Ince, cited Snook v. Watts (11 Bea. 105) and Price v. Berrington (7 Hare 394; S. C. 3 Mac. & G. 486), in which the case of Lady Kirhvall v. Flight was referred to. Mr. J. H. Taylor, in reply. the yice-chancellor [Sir Jo......
-
Jacobs v Porter
...made without notice of lunacy or insanity; Molton v. Gamroux (2 Ex. Rep. 427 ; 4 Ex. Rep. 17); 1'rice v. Eerrington\3 Macn. & Gor. 486 ; 7 Hare, 394); Bagster v. The Earl of Portsmouth (5 Barn. & Cr, 170); Shelford on Lunacy (p. 255 (1st edit.)); Howard v. Earl Digby (2 Clark & Fin. 634). A......