Sturgis v Champneys
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 41 E.R. 308
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 3 Jur. 840. See Ward v. Ward, 1880, 14 Ch. D. 508.
[97] sturgis v. champneys. August 2, Nov. 7, 1839. [S. C. 3 Jur. 840. See Ward v. Ward, 1880, 14 Ch. D. 508.] The assignee of an insolvent debtor, whose wife was entitled for life to real property, being obliged to come into equity to enforce his title to the rents during the joint lives of the husband and wife, in consequence of the legal estate being vested in mortgagees. Held, bound to make a provision for the wife. The Plaintiff in this cause was the provisional assignee of the estate of an insolvent debtor, whose wife was entitled, for her life, to large landed property, of which the legal estate was outstanding in mortgagees. The Defendants were the insolvent debtor and his wife and their receiver of the estates, and the assignees under a subsequent insolvency. The circumstance of the legal estate being outstanding having made it necessary for the assignee to come into this Court to make his title (subject to the incumbrances) effectual, the question which came before the Lord Chancellor, upon the wife's appeal from a decree of the Vice-Chancellor, was whether the assignee was not bound to make a provision for the wife out of the rents and profits. The facts of the case, and the arguments urged upon the appeal, sufficiently appear from the Lord Chancellor's judgment. Mr. Stuart, Mr. Hodgson, and Mr. Parry supported the appeal. Mr. Wakefield, Mr. Wigram, and Mr. Reynolds, for the Plaintiff, and Mr. Jacob, Mr. Richards, and Mr. Chandless, for the assignees under the second insolvency, supported the decree. [98] Mr. Rogers appeared for a purchaser under the second insolvency. It was contended by the counsel for the assignees under the second insolvency, that the wife's life interest in the estates could not be considered as an equitable interest, merely on the ground that the legal estate might be outstanding; and that the Court had never made a provision for a wife out of such an interest as the husband in the 5 HY. & OR. 99. STURGIS V. CHAMPNEYS 309 present case had, and that it was not established that the wife's equity to a provision extended to the rents of real estate. Nm. 7. the lord chancellor [Cottenham], The title to the property in question, stated by the bill to be of the value of 10,000 per annum or thereabouts, is under the will of Sir Roger Mostyn, by which, after giving certain annuities to his unmarried daughters, which were to cease upon their marriage, he devised all his real estate to trustees, for a term of 500 years, upon trust by and out of the rents and profits, or by sale, to pay so much of his debts, funeral expenses, legacies and annuities, as his personal estate not specifically-bequeathed should be-defective to pay; and, subject to that term, he devised his estate to his son for life, remainder to his sons in tail, remainder to the same trustees for a term of 1000 years, upon trust, after any of his daughters should come into possession upon failure of issue of his son, by sale or mortgage, to levy, raise, and pay to each of his other daughters then living 10,000, and, subject to the trusts of such term, to the use of his eldest daughter and her issue, with remainder to the use of his second daughter, Lady Champneys, for life, with remainder to her first and other sons in tail male, with remainders over. [99] The bill then states the death of the son, without issue, in 1831, and the previous death, without issue, of the eldest daughter, and that Lady Champneys, therefore, upon the death of the son, became entitled as tenant for life. It then states that two of the daughters of the testator remaining unmarried were entitled to their annuities under the 500 years' term, but that all arrears had been paid, and that a sum of 41,000 had, under a decree of this Court, been raised to satisfy the trusts of the 1000 years' term, and that all the estates, except part included in a former mortgage for 7000, had been mortgaged to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Langman v Handover
-
Vaughan v Buck
...188),.Williams v. Callow (2 Vern. 752), Oxenden v. Oxenden (Ibid. 493), Elliott v. Cordell (5 Madd. 149), and Sturgis v. Champneys (5 My. & Cr. 97). Mr. Bethell and Mr. Cole, for the assignees of Mr, Buck's estates, said that the Court directed a settlement to be made of property which accr......
-
Warren v Newton and Others
...597. Nichols v. DanversENR 2 Vern. 598. De Mannville v. De Mannville 10 Ves. 56. Duncan v. Duncan 19 Ves. 394. Sturgis v. ChampneysENR 5 My. & Cr. 97. Aguilar v. AguilarUNK 5 Mad. 414. Adams v. PierceENR 3 P. Wms. 12. Elibank v. Montolieu 5 Ves. 737. Blois v. HerefordENR 2 Vern. 502. Lord C......
-
Newenham v Pemberton
...has been determined to extend to her equitable interests in [657] real estates-a doctrine fully established by Sturgis v. Ohampneys (5 My. & Cr. 97); Hanson v. Keating (4 Hare, 1). Indeed, the Court would have jurisdiction independently of this consideration, the husband being in contempt, ......