Re Spence
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 May 1847 |
| Date | 07 May 1847 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 41 E.R. 937
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 16 L. J. Ch. 309; 11 Jur. (O. S.), 399. See Brown v. Collins, 1883, 25 Ch. D. 60; Rosenberg v. Lindo, 1883, 48 L. T. 479.
In re spence. May 7, 1847. [S. C. 16 L. J. Ch. 309; 11 Jur. (0. S.), 399. See Brown v. Collins, 1883, 25 Ch. D. 60; Rosenberg v. Undo, 1883, 48 L. T. 479.] The cases in which this Court interferes for the protection of infants are not confined to those in which there is property. The Court may make an order for the delivery of an infant to the party who ought to have the custody of it, on petition, as well as under the general jurisdiction upon habeas cwpw. A husband, whose wife had three years before absconded with his infant children, applied for an order, that the wife's brother, who had assisted in her escape, and had since transmitted to her the income to which she was entitled under her marriage settlement, of which he was trustee, might either produce the children or disclose the place of their concealment, or, at least, discontinue the transmission of the income. On an affidavit of the brother, that the children were not in his custody or under his control, the order was refused. This was an appeal from an order made by the Vice-Chancellor of England, on the petition of Mr, Spence, requiring the Appellants, who were the two trustees of his. marriage settlement, to deliver up to him the custody of his three children. [248] The petition on which that order was made stated that the Petitioner and his wife were married in 1839 ; that in 1842 he renounced the Protestant faith, which was that of his wife, and became a Roman Catholic ; that, shortly after, having become embarrassed in his circumstances, he broke up his establishment at Stockton, where he had lived up to that time, and went to London to arrange his affairs, his wife and children remaining at Stockton with her mother, who also resided there; that, after a short absence, he returned to Stockton in September 1843, with the intention of taking a lodging for himself and his family, but that, on the day of his arrival there, his wife, who was then pregnant with their third child, secretly escaped with her brother, who was one of the Appellants, taking the two children, who were then born, with her, and that she had ever since kept the children in some place of concealment which was known to the Appellants, who had from time to time transmitted to her the income to which she was entitled under her marriage settlement, though they refused to inform the Petitioner where she was. The prayer of the petition was, that the children might be delivered up to the Petitioner, and that, if necessary, a writ or writs of habeas corpus might issue for that purpose. On the original hearing of that petition before the Vice-Chancellor, an order was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- CAS v MPPL and Another
-
Re Z (A Minor) (Freedom of Publication)
...and that it is the duty of the Crown to see that the child is properly taken care of." 29Twenty years later Lord Cottenham L.C. said in Re Spence (1847) 2Ph. 247 at p251:- "I have no doubt about the jurisdiction. The cases in which the court of Chancery interferes on behalf of infants are n......
-
Gloucestershire County Council v Re K
...beyond property rights to welfare and protection of vulnerable children. It is interesting to consider the comments of Lord Cottenham LC in Re Spence (1847) 2 PH 247 at para 251: "I have no doubt about the jurisdiction. The cases in which the court interferes on behalf of infants are not co......
-
Re a Local Authority (Inquiry: Restraint on publication)
...devolves to the Crown, as parens patriae, and that it is the duty of the Crown to see that the child is properly taken care of." 71 In 1968 in re L [1968] 1 All ER 20 Lord Denning MR at page 24, referred to Wellesley v. Duke of Beaufort and said "Even if there was no property and the child ......