Taylor v Pugh
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 July 1842 |
| Date | 26 July 1842 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 66 E.R. 1173
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 12 L. J. Ch. 73; 6 Jur. 890.
[608] taylor v. pugh. July 20, 22, 23, 26, 1842. [S. C. 12 L. J. Ch. 73; 6 Jur. 890.] The equity of the husband to set aside a settlement of the property of his wife, executed by her during the treaty of marriage without his knowledge, is precluded by his conduct towards her, whereby she is deprived of the power of retiring from the marriage, or, therefore, of stipulating for a settlement. To what extent the same equity is taken away by the absence of any other settlement in favour of the wife, or the poverty of the husband, or the reasonable nature or meritorious object of the impeached settlement, or the ignorance of the husband of the existence of the settled property : Qucere. It is not necessary, in order to establish his title to this equity, that the husband should prove actual fraud or deception (for deception will be inferred), if, after the commencement of the treaty of marriage, the wife should have attempted to dispose of her property without the knowledge or concurrence of her intended husband. The bill prayed that a settlement of the 20th of December 1837, which had been executed by the Defendant, Elizabeth Taylor, a short time before her marriage with the Plaintiff, might be declared to be fraudulent and void, and delivered up to be cancelled; and the share of the Defendant in her father's estate, the subject of the settlement, be paid to the Plaintiff, her husband. 1174 TAYLOR V. PT7GH 1 HAKE, 609. Elizabeth Taylor's father died intestate in October 1837, leaving seven children; and their distributive shares of his estate, as his next of kin, amounted to 300 apiece. Elizabeth resided with her brother, the Defendant, William, until early in December in the same year; when, for some reason (alleged, but not proved, to be the harsh treatment she received from her brother), she left his house and took up her abode with the Plaintiff. The bill alleged, and some evidence was given to shew, that after this, at the request of William, her brother, communicated through a relation that she would go to Mr. Dansey's (a solicitor at Ludlow) " to sign to her property as the rest of her brothers and sisters had done," the Defendant Elizabeth went to the office of Mr. Dansey and executed the settlement, without knowing its effect. It appeared, however, by the evidence that she was twice at the office, and that on the first occasion she instructed Mr. Dansey to settle her property so that she should have it for her life ; and that Mr. Dansey prepared the settlement, which [609] was executed by her at his office, after the same had been read, and the contents and purport explained to her. By the settlement the Defendant, then Elizabeth Pugh, assigned the 300, and all other her share of her father's property, to the Defendant, William Pugh, and another, upon trust to invest the same, and pay the interest and dividends to the separate use of herself for life, with remainder to her children in equal shares, and if she should have no children, then as she should appoint, and in default of appointment to her next of kin, excluding any husband she might leave; with power to the trustees, on their own authority and discretion, to call in all or any part of the trust fund, and to apply or advance the same for the benefit of the Defendant Elizabeth, and any children she might have, or any one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Downes v Jennings
...C. C. 345 5 1 Ves. 22; 2 Cox, 28, and 6 Bro. P. C. 427); England v. Dmms (2 Beav. 522); Goddard v. Snow (1 Russ. 485); Taylor v. Pugh (1 Hare, 608). [293] Mr. Baggallay and Mr. Nugent, for Mrs. Downes. Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Shebbeare, for the other Defendants who claimed interests in the proper......
-
Prideaux v Lonsdale
...he filed a bill to have the money paid to him, and the Court held the settlement void as a fraud on his marital, right. In Taylor v. Pugh (1 Hare, 608), it was laid down that it was not necessary, in order to establish his right to impeach a settlement, that the husband should prove actual ......
-
Chambers v Crabbe
...Ves. & B. 354); St. George v. Wake (1 Myl. & Kay, 610); Thomas v. Williams (Moseley, 177); Goddard v. Snow (1 Russ. 485); Taylor v. Pugh (1 Hare, 608); Downes v. Jennings (32 Beav. 290). the master of the bolls [Sir John Eomilly]. The Plaintiffs are entitled to a decree. The evidence convin......
-
Bagshaw v The Eastern Union Railway Company
...B. 354) was relied upon by the Vice-Chancellor, but it is clearly distinguishable from the present. (They also referred to Taylor v. Pugh (1 Hare, 608).) Mr. Malins and Mr. Eddis, for the infant Defendants. Mr. Wood and Mr. Hallett, for the Defendants, the Clarkes. thi lord chancellor [Cott......