Sanders v Rodway
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 November 1852 |
| Date | 11 November 1852 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 757
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 16 Jur. 1005.
[207] sandeks v. rodway. Nov. 11, 1852. [S. C. 16 Jur. 1005.] Courts of Equity, recognizing the validity of separation deeds, will enforce them. By a separation deed, a husband covenanted with his wife's father, that his wife during her life, might live separate from him, that ho would not sue her in the Ecclesiastical Court for living separate; that he would not molest, &c., her, nor claim any of her property ; and her father covenanted with the husband to maintain her and indemnify him. Upon an infraction of the covenant, by the husband molesting his wife, he was restrained by injunction. In 1828 the Defendant John Eodway married Elizabeth Sanders. Differences having arisen, they, in 1834, agreed to separate, whereupon a deed, dated the 19th of February 1834, was executed, which was made between the Defendant John Rodway of the one part, and Benjamin Sanders the elder (the father of Mrs. Eodway) and Benjamin Sanders the younger (her brother) and Mrs. Rodway of the other part, whereby, after reciting the existing differences and the agreement to separate upon the terms after mentioned, John Rodway covenanted with Benjamin Sanders the elder and Benjamin Sanders the younger, their executors, administrators and assigns, that he John Rodway would permit and suffer Elizabeth Rodway, from time to time and at all times from thenceforth, during her natural life, to live separate and apart from him, and to reside and be in such place and places, and family and families, and with such relations and friends and other persons, and to follow and carry on such trade or business as she from time to time, at her will and pleasure, notwithstanding her present coverture and as if she were a feme sole and unmarried, should think fit; and that he John Rodway would not, at any time or times thereafter, sue her, the said Elizabeth Rodway, in the Ecclesiastical Court or any other Court for living separate or apart from him, or to compel her to cohabit with him, or sue, molest, disturb or trouble her for such living separate and apart from him, or any other person or persons whomsoever, for receiving, har-[208]-bouring or entertaining her; nor would, without her consent, visit her, or knowingly come into any house or 758 SANDERS V. ROD WAY 16 BEAV, 209. place where she might dwell, reside or be, or send or cause to be sent any letter or message to her. He then covenanted not to claim or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunt v Hunt
...solicitor-general (Sir R. Palmer) and Mr. Waller were for the Respondent. The following authorities were referred to :-Sanders v. Rodiuay (16 Beav. 207); Wilson v. Wilson (14 Sim. 405; S. C. 1 H. of L. Gas. 538; S. C. 5 H. of L. Gas. 40); Mortimer v. Mortimer (2 Hagg. Consist. E. 310); Bate......
-
Hope v Hope
...v. Wilson (5 H. L. Ca. 40, 59, 60); and the Court has gone very near to enforcing an agreement for separation itself; Sanders v. Rodway (16 Beav. 207). The principles on which the 8DBQ.M.&0.739. HOPE V. HOPE 575 Court acts are laid down in Wilson v. Wilson (1 H. L. Ca. 538-573); Bateman v. ......
-
Hope v Hope
...Jacob (3 Mer. 268); Elworthy v. Bird (2 Sim. & Stu. 372) ; Wilson v. Wilson (1 H. of L. Cas. 538; 5 H. of L. Cas. 40); Sanders v. Railway (16 Beav. 207); Hills v. Crott (2 Phill. 60); Lnimley v. Wagner (1 De G. M. & G. 604); Gervais v. Edwards (2 Dru. & War. 80); 2 Roper. Husb. and Wife (p.......
-
Matthews v Matthews
...cited Mwtimer v. Mortimer 2 Hagg. Cons. , Coode v. Coode, 1 Carl. 755 } Bettington v Bettmgton, 1 Eccl. & Adm. 200 , Sanders v. Rodway, 16 Beav 207 Martin, B. . The decision of the Judge Ordinary must be athrmed. I am not satisfied upon the then existing evidence of facts, that an Ecclesias......