Rhodes v Bate
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 May 1865 |
| Date | 03 May 1865 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 66 E.R. 875
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. on appeal, L. R 1 Ch. 252. Commented on, Mitchell v. Homfray, 1881, 8 Q. B. D. 587. See Taylor v. Johnston, 1882, 19 Ch. D. 610; Allcard v. Skinner, 1887, 36 Ch. D. 158; Liles v. Terry [1895], 2 Q. B. 683; Barren v. Willis [1900], 2 Ch. 128; [1902], A. C. 271.
[670] erodes v. bate. March 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, May 3, 1865. [S. C. on appeal, L. R 1 Ch. 252. Commented on, Mitchell v. Homfray, 1881, 8 Q. B. D. 587. See Taylor v. Johnston, 1882, 19 Ch. D. 610; Allcardv. Skinner, 1887, 36 Ch. D. 158 ; Liles v. Terry [1895], 2 Q. B. 683; Barren v. Willis [1900], 2 Ch. 128; [1902], A. C. 271.] Where the professional adviser of the Plaintiff, being aware of her pecuniary means, and of the influence over her possessed by her brother-in-law, who was indebted to him, took securities from the Plaintiff for the amount of his debt, the Court set them aside, and made the Defendant pay the costs of the suit. This bill was filed by Sophia Ehodes against Mr. Robert Bate, her professional adviser, the Eev. Henry Codrington, for whose debts she had been rendered liable, and Francis and William Brice, who claimed to be interested in the property belonging to the Plaintiff. The bill alleged that the Plaintiff in 1848 went to reside with the Defendant, Codrington, who is her brother-in-law, and continued to reside with him till May 1863. That the Plaintiff received from the trustees of her father's will, in 1853, 800 in cash; in 1854, 1200 more; and the balance, amounting to 3880, was with her sanction invested on a mortgage of leaseholds at Islington transferred to her. The Plaintiff, shortly after receiving the sums of 200, 600 and. 1200, lent them to the Defendant, Codrington, at his urgent request,, and with the privity of Bate, to be invested by Codrington in land which Bate induced Codrington to 876 RHODES V. BATE 4 GIFT. 671. purchase. Codrington promised to give to Plaintiff good security for the said sums, amounting to 2000, but omitted to do so, and those sums were lost. The Defendant, Bate, in October 1857, knew that such sums were lost, and that the sum of 3880 represented her whole fortune. The bill alleged that the Plaintiff first employed Robert Bate as her professional adviser in December 1853, when she was desirous of altering her will, and he by that means became fully acquainted with the amount of her fortune, and, from the knowledge acquired by him in the course of such investigation of her accounts, conceived the design of diverting the Plaintiff's fortune from her, and applying the same towards payment of Codrington's debts to himself. The bill also alleged that, in consequence of the hostile manner in which the trustees' accounts were examined [671] by Bate, an estrangement took place between the Plaintiff and her brother, one of the trustees, so that no communication passed between her and him at the close of 1862. The bill then alleged that in 1851 Codrington, at the suggestion and under the advice of Bate, commenced a system of speculating in the purchase and sale of land, and continued speculating till 1861; and that Bate acted in the matter of the purchase of mortgages and sales of land made by Codrington, and entered the particulars of such transactions in ledgers and account-books kept by him; and that such particulars formed part of a correct account kept by Bate against Codrington in the ledger, of which there was no copy given to the Plaintiff or to Codrington till July 1861. The bill charged that it was in July 1861 that Bate first constructed the account. The bill then set forth several purchases by Codrington, and subsequent mortgages to secure the purchase-money, the result of which was to leave certain sums due to Bate. The bill then stated one transaction in which, Codrington having accepted a bill of exchange, dated the 5th of August 1854, and that bill being dishonoured, the Plaintiff was induced by Codrington to accompany him to Bate's office, where, without inquiry what she had to sign, she signed some printed form of bond which Bate filled up and produced to the Plaintiff for her signature, and which proved to be a joint and several bond of the Plaintiff and Codrington in a penal sum of 643 to secure 321, 10s. The bill alleged that the Plaintiff was wholly unconversant with business in 1854, and wholly under the influence of Codrington, and the Defendant, Bate, ought to have advised her not to execute the bond, or to have explained the effect thereof, but that he did neither. The bill also alleged that only 221, 10s. was due, and not 321, 10s., and that such fact was in 1857 admitted by Bate. [672] The bill as amended then traversed an allegation of the Defendant, Bate, that he had ever lent her any money or paid the same for her use, or that on the 31st of March 1855 Codrington and Plaintiff, as his surety, ever accepted a bill of exchange of that...
To continue reading
Request your trial