Pullen v Ready, et e con, '
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 January 1743 |
| Date | 08 January 1743 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 751
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Case 332.-wrottesley versus wrottesley, June 1,1743. S. C. 3 P. W. 235.-The words under the marriage-settlement, such child as married without the father's consent should forfeit the said intended portion, extended to the whole interest each child might expect under this settlement, whether certain or contingent. (So Chauncey v. Graydon, 2 Atk. 616, See also Harvey v. Asian, i Atk. 361, and the note at the end of that case.) A question arose on the marriage-settlement of Sir John Wrottesley, who created a term for years, in trust, " to raise and pay, if one child, only 6000, if two, 6000 to " be equally divided; if three, or more, 8000 to be equally divided, and to be paid at " their respective ages of tyenty-one, or marriage ; and it was provided, that if any " of the said younger children should marry in the father's life-time, without his consent, " and, after his death, without the consent of the mother, such child should forfeit his or " her said intended portion, to be distributed among the rest, at the age of 21, or " marriage, with such consent; with a farther proviso, that if any such child should " marry without such consent, or die before [585] twenty-one, or marriage with consent, " the portion to be divided among the survivors, of the age of twenty-one, or marriage " with consent," 750 WROTTESLEY V. WROTTESLEY 2 ATK. 586. Frances, one of the daughters, married with Mr. Bendish, without the consent of the mother; and on hearing of the cause before Lord Talbot, on the 6th of August 1734, it was held, that she had forfeited her portion,~by such marriage, and was decreed to the other children. One of the daughters is since dead, before twenty-one, or marriage; and the petitioner, Mr. Bendish, who married Frances, applies now, in the right of his wife, who is twenty-one, for her distributive share of her sister's contingent portion. The question is, Whether Frances, as she has forfeited her originaLfportion, is intitled to a share of this contingent portion, on the death of her sister, before twenty-one, or marriage. Mr. Wilbraham, for the petitioner, who was not twenty-one when she married, but arrived at that age before her sister died, cited the case of King versus Withers (Ca. temp. Talb. 117; 3 P. W. 414, S. C.), as a case in point. Mr. Attorney General, counsel for the other sisters, insisted, that the whole term, and the whole 8000, was under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker v Bradley
...according to the sense ascribed by English Courts of Equity to the term "family arrange-[616]-ment," or, that according to Pullen v. Heady (2 Atk. 587), Gordon v. Gordon (3 Swanst. 400), Tweddell v. Tweddell (Turn. & R. 1), or any of the authorities cited in Palmer v. WJieeler (2 Ball & B. ......
-
John Lumley Savile, Earl of Scarborough, against Doe on the demise of Frederick Lumley Savile, Esquire
...of B.'s estate, and cornea after it in order of limitation; and B. may bar it by a recovery. This is in effect the case of Pullen v. Ready (2 Atk. 587). (3). But suppose land limited to A. for life, remainder to B. in tail, provided that, if a tree fall during A.'s life, the limitations sha......
-
Howard and Another v Bank of Ireland and Others
...1 I. R. 130, at p. 144. (3) [1943] A. C. 320. (4) [1942] Ch. 1, at p. 13. (1) [1905] 1 Ch. 96. (2) Gilb. Ch. 26. (3) 2 P. Wms. 547. (4) 2 Atk. 587. (5) 5 Ves. (6) 1 V. & B. 134 at p. 138. (7) 3 Mer. 108, at p. 116. (1) 1 Moll. 543, at p. 547. (2) 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 473. ...
-
John Stanislaus Sweetman v William Andrew Sweetman
...F. 911. Williams v. Williams L. R. 2 Ch. Ap. 294. Dillon v. ParkerENR 1 Swans. 359. Spread v. Morgan 11 H. L. Cas. 588. Pullen v. ReadyENR 2 Atk. 587. Tomkyns v. Ladbroke 2 Ves. 593. Tibbits v. Tibbits 19 Ves. 663. Stratford v. PowellUNK 1 B. & B. 1. Butricke v. Broadhurst 1 Ves. J. 172. Br......