Rhodes v Cook
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 February 1826 |
| Date | 27 February 1826 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 432
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Agreement. Parent and Child.
[488] rhodes v. cook. Feb. 24, 27, 1826. Agreement. Parent and Child. A tenant for life of real estate, with remainder to his children as he should appoint, remainder to them in fee, entered into an agreement with a creditor, to which his children were parties, that the estate should be immediately sold, and one-half of the produce paid to the father, and the other to the children. The father remained in possession for seven years, and then died, without having taken any step to carry the agreement into effect. A bill by the personal representative of the creditor against the children and the representative of the father, to have the agreement carried into effect, was dismissed on the ground that the father, by continuing in possession of the estate, deprived his daughters of the benefit of the agreement. In 1812 the Defendant to the original bill being tenant for life of an estate, with remainder to his children as he should appoint, with remainder to his children in fee, mortgaged the estate, and assigned a policy of insurance on his life to the Plaintiffs testator to secure a sum of money advanced to him by the latter. In November 1814 2 SIM. ft ST. 419. KNIGHT V. KNIGHT 433 the Defendant -obtained a further advance of 500 from the same person, for which ha gave his bond only; but an agreement was at the time made between him, of the first part, his two daughters, who were his only children, of the second part, and the creditor, of the third part; whereby it was agreed that the mortgaged estate should be immediately sold, that the father should receive for his own use a clear moiety of the produce, and that the other moiety should be equally divided between the two daughters. The father lived seven years after the agreement was entered into, and continued during the whole time in possession of the estate, without taking any steps to carry the agreement into effect. After the filing of the original bill the father died. This was a supplemental bill by the creditor's executor against the daughters and their father's executor, praying that the agreement might be carried into effect, that the estate might be sold, and that a [489] clear moiety of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Skelton v Flanagan
...626. Archbold v. The Commissioners of Charitable DonationsENR 2 H. L. C. 440. Lombard v. HicksonELR L. R. 1 H. L. 324. Rhodes v. CookENR 2 Sim. & St. 488. Davies v. Otty 13 W. R. 484. Lane v. PageENR Amb. 235. Hamilton v. Kirwan 2 J. & L. 393. Rowley v. RowleyENR Kay, 242. Langston v. Black......
-
Duggan v Duggan
...R. 295. D'Abbadie v. Bizoin I. R. 5 Eq. 205. Davis v. Uphill 1 Swanst. 129. Skelton v. Flanagan I. R. 1 Eq. 362, 369. Rhodes v. CookENR 2 Sim. & Stu. 488. Arnold v. HardwickENR 7 Sim. 343. Humphrey v. Olver 28 L. J. Ch. (N. S.) 406. Cockcroft v. Sutcliffe 25 L. J. Ch (N. S.) 313. M'Queen v.......