Samuel Newstead, John Stokes, and Sussannah his Wife, Joseph Atkinson and Elizabeth his Wife, and Samuel Newstead the Elder, a Bond Creditor, Plaintiffs; (1) and Samuel Searle, Thomas Miller, a Mortgagee, James Balls, and Others, Defendants
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 March 1737 |
| Date | 02 March 1737 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 25 E.R. 942
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Doe v. Manning, 1807, 9 East, 68; Dickenson v. Wright, 1860, 5 H. & N. 412; Clarke v. Wright, 1861, 6 H. & N. 867, 879. Distinguished Smith v. Cherrell, 1867, L. R. 4 Eq. 396. Commented on, Price v. Jenkins, 1876, 4 Ch. D. 483 (reversed on different point, 5 Ch. D. 619). Followed, Gale v. Gale, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 144. Approved, Mackie v. Herbertson, 1884, 9 App. Cas. 336. Discussed and principle not extended to widower's children, In re Cameron and Wells, 1887, 37 Ch. D. 32. See also Tucker v. Bennett, 1887, 38 Ch. D. 10. Explained, De Mestre v. West, [1891] A. C. 264; Att.-Gen. v. Jacobs Smith, [1895] 2 Q. B. 341.
samuel newstead, john stokes, and sussannah his Wife, joseph atkinson and elizabeth his Wife, and samuel newstead the Elder, a Bond Creditor, Plaintiffs ; (1) and samuel searle, thomas miller, a Mortgagee, james balls, and Others, Defendants. [See Doe v. Manning, 1807, 9 East, 68; Dickenson v. Wright, 1860, 5 H. & N. 412 ; Clarke v. Wright, 1861, 6 H. & N. 867, 879. Distinguished, Smith v. Cherrell, 1867, L. R. 4 Eq. 396. Commented on, Price v. Jenkins, 1876, 4 Ch. D. 483 (reversed on different point, 5 Ch. D. 619). Followed, Gale v. Gale, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 144. Approved, Mackie v. Herbertson, 1884, 9 App. Cas. 336. Discussed and principle not extended to widower's children, In re Cameron and Wells, 1887, 37 Ch. D. 32. See also Tucker v. Bennett, 1887, 38 Ch. D. 10. Explained, De Mestre v. West, [1891] A. C. 264; Att.-Gen. v. Jacobs Smith, [1895] 2 Q. B. 341.] March 2nd, 1737. 1 Atk. 265. A widow who had two children by a former husband, and these two children, each of them a child, and being entitled after the death of her mother, to certain freehold, copyhold, and leasehold estates, by articles before her second marriage, to which her husband was a party, and with his consent, covenanted that trustees should stand seised of the freehold, copyhold, and leasehold estates, if no issue of the marriage, in moieties ; one to the plaintiff, her grandson, his heirs and assigns, the other to her grand-daughter in fee; provided, if there should be any child or children of the marriage, such child or children, to have an equal share of the said estates with the grandson and grand-daughter; The husband and wife afterwards mortgage the WEST T. HA.BD. 288. NEWSTEAD V. SEARLE 943 estates to persons who had notice of the articles; Declared that the articles are no voluntary agreement, but a binding one, and that it was not fraudulent and void against subsequent purchasers or creditors.(2) Elizabeth Martin was entitled, under the will of her father, John Cornwallis, dated in 1798, to certain freehold, copyhold, and leasehold estates, of the annual value of 150, after the death of her mother, Grace Cornwallis; and by her first husband had issue Elizabeth, the mother of the plaintiff, Samuel Newstead, and the plaintiff Susannah Stokes, the mother of the other plaintiff, Elizabeth Atkinson. [288] After the death of her first husband, Elizabeth Martin married the defendant Samuel Searle, and by indenture, by way of settlement, made previous to that marriage, and dated the 30th of April 1709, reciting the will of John Cornwallis, and that it had been agreed that Elizabeth Martin should dispose and settle her estate to the uses and purposes thereinafter mentioned; the said Elizabeth Martin, with the consent of the said Samuel, for the settlement of her estate upon such children and grandchildren of her the said Elizabeth, as she should have living...
To continue reading
Request your trial