Snellgrove v Bailey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 March 1744 |
| Date | 11 March 1744 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 924
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Case 70.-hearne versus barber, February 28, 1744. S. C. 1 Ves. 17, cited.-Some years after the marriage of the son of a freeman of the city of London, the parents on both sides met, and agreed to advance 200 a-piece, to lie by, till they could purchase for him a commission in the army. It appealing to the court to be intended as a marriage portion,'they considered it as an advancement, and a, bar to the orphanage share. (See Fawkner v. Watts, 1 Atk. 406.) A son of a freeman of the city of London received a sum of money from his father after his marriage, but it did not appear to have been paid as a portion, nor under the father's hand, but it was admitted at last, by counsel, that the parents on both sides met, some years after the marriage, and agreed to advance two hundred pounds a-piece, to lie by, till they could purchase a commission in the army for the son. The question is, Whether this bars the son of the orphanage part ? I always took it, that the custom of London relates to advancement upon marriage, and though Jud's Law is in general terms, still it may be relative to the portion. But I do not know whether the fact will warrant me to send it to the court of lord mayor and aldermen, to certify whether this is such an advancement as is a bar; for it appears upon the very face of it to be a marriage portion, and as this is the fact, it certainly is an advancement. But as to another child of the freeman, the sums advanced to him, as he was not married, is clearly no exclusion. For Jud's Law, which was an act of common council, in the time of King Henry the Sixth, does not make it a bar, unless it was an advancement upon marriage (Hume v. Edwards, 3 Atk...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sen v Headley
...a gift in English law. We can therefore turn away from the Roman law and give our whole attention to the English authorities. 12 In Snellgrove v. Baily (1744) 3 Atk. 213 a bond for £100 was given by one Spackman to Sarah Baily, who delivered it to the defendant, saying: "In case I die, it i......
-
Porter v Walsh
...v. Murray Ir. R. 3 Eq. 460, at p. 467. Moore v. DartonENR 4 De G. & S. 517. Moore v. MooreELR L. R. 18 Eq. 474. Snellgrove v. BailyENR 3 Atk. 214. Thompson v. Heffernan 4 Dr. & W. 285. Veal v. VealENR 27 Beav. 303. Witt v. AmissENR 1 B. & S. 109. Donatio mortis causa — Deposit receipt. 284 ......
-
Moore v Darton
...William Moore, who now excepted to that finding. Mr. Swanston and Mr. Moxon supported the exceptions, and cited Snellgrave v. Bailey (3 Atk. 214), Hurst v. Beach (5 Madd. 355), Drury v. Smith (1 P. Wms. 404), Hill v. Chapman (2 Bro. C. C. 612), Walter v. Hodge (2 Swanst. 92), and 8 & 9 Viet......
-
Walter v Hodge
...stock ; Ward v. Turner, 2 Ves. Sen. 431, but expressions of gift and delivery of a bond, constitute a valid donation. Snellyrave v. Bailey, 3 Atk. 214. Gardner v. Parker, 3 Madd. 184, The peculiar inducement and circumstances of the gift, annex to it certain qualifications, which may lie in......