Thomas Philippe La Cloche v Thomas La Cloche
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 28 June 1872 |
| Date | 28 June 1872 |
| Court | Privy Council |
English Reports Citation: 17 E.R. 446
ON APPEAL FROM THE ROYAL COURT OF JERSEY.
Mews' Dig. tit. Colony; II. Particular Colonies; 13. Jersey and Guernsey; c. Laws. S.C. L.R. 4 P.C. 325; 41 L.J. P.C. 51; 20 W.R. 953. See La Cloche v. La Cloche, 1870, 6 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 383; L.R. 3 P.C. 125.
[87] ON APPEAL FROM THE ROYAL COURT OF JERSEY. THOMAS PHILIPPE LA CLOCHE,-Appellant; THOMAS LA CLOCHE,-Respondent. And, by Revivor, THOMAS PHILIPPE LA CLOCHE,-Appellant; THE VISCOUNT OF JERSEY,-^Respondent * [June 27, 28, 1872]. The written customary Laws of Normandy since the time of the separation of the Island of Jersey from that Duchy are authorities received in Jersey as expositions of the Law and customs of the Island [9 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 99, 100]. According to the Law of Jersey, an illegitimate child is legitimated per sub-sequens matrimonium [9 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 97]. A domiciled Jerseyman was the putative Father of a child by a Jerseywoman. He afterwards married in England the Mother of the child:-Held that proof of the certificate of the marriage, coupled with the fact of the child being always acknowledged by him, and received as the offspring of the Husband and Wife, was sufficient evidence, without any formal recognition of paternity by the Father [9 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 99, 100], A gratuitous gift by Deed of real estate to a Grandson by his Grandfather to the disinheritance of his only Son :-Held, void, as by the Law of Jersey the Donor had no power to defeat the law of succession, by which, in the case of an only Son, the estate of the Father descended [9 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 101, 103]. * Present: Sir James William Colvile, the Lord Justice James, Sir Barnes Peacock, Sir Montague Edward Smith, and Sir Robert Porrett Collier. 446 LA CLOCHE V. LA CLOCHE [1872] IX MOORE N.S., 88 Pending an appeal the Respondent died intestate leaving children, who, by reason of litigation respecting their Father's right of succession, objected to be made Respondents. The Judicial Committee directed the petition to revive to stand over, with liberty to apply to the Royal Court of Jersey to appoint a proper person to represent the estate. The Royal Court appointed the Viscount of the Island as Official representative of the estate, and the appeal was revived in his name [9 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 91, 92]. This appeal was brought from the unanimous judgment of the Superior number of Full Court of appeal of the Royal Court of the Island of Jersey, confirming [88] a judgment of the Inferior number of that Court, whereby a voluntary Deed of gift, in favour of the Appellant, of real estate in the Island, was set aside and annulled at the instance of Thomas La Cloche the younger, the original Respondent, under the following circumstances: - The Deed in question was, on the 12th of August, 1862, passed before the Royal Court of Jersey, by Thomas La Cloche, the elder, a native of the Island, and the Father of Thomas La Cloche, the younger, and which Thomas La Cloche the elder was entitled to the property in question, which he by the above Deed affected to convey to the Appellant, Thomas Philippe La Cloche, who was the only Son of Thomas La Cloche the younger, whom he therein described as his " petit fils," and his heirs for ever. The Deed was expressed to be executed " de sa libre volonte," no pecuniary or valuable consideration being mentioned in it, or given or received for its execution. Thomas La Cloche the younger, the Father of the Appellant, was born in the year 1793; but at the time of his birth his Father and Mother (then Marguerite Le Breton) were not married. It appeared, however, from a certificate and declaration of the marriage, that they were subsequently married in England in June, 1854; and on that occasion, as well as on many [89] others, Thomas La Cloche the younger was recognized by his Father as his child. Thomas La Cloche the elder died on the 13th of October, 1864, leaving Thomas La Cloche the younger, who, in April, 1865, and within a year and a day from his Father's death, as his only Son and heir-at-law, instituted the suit now under appeal, to set aside the Deed on the ground, that by the Law of Jersey it was not competent to his Father, by a voluntary Deed, to deprive him of his inheritance. On the 29th of June, 1865, the cause came to a hearing before the Inferior number of the Court, when the Appellant (the Defendant in the Court below) prayed that the cause might be deferred until the termination of a suit respecting his 'Grandfather's Will (see La Cloche v. La Cloche, 6 Moore's P.C. Cases, (N.S.), 383; S.C. Law Rep., 3 P.C., 125), which was then depending before the same Court between himself and the Executors of the Will, alleging that the same questions as regarded the legitimacy of his Father were at issue in both causes. The Court adopted this view, and deferred the hearing until the suit relative to the Will should have been finally decided. On appeal from this decision the Superior number of the Court reversed the decision, and sent the parties back to prosecute the cause before the Inferior number. In conformity with this judgment the cause was again brought before the Inferior number, when the Appellant disputed the late Respondent's title to sue as the legitimate Son of his Father. The Plaintiff, the late Respondent, in support of his title, put in evidence various documents, among which were Actes or decisions of the Royal and Ecclesiastical Courts in [90] the Island, extracted from the Records of the Courts, showing that, though born out of wedlock, he had, according to the Law of Jersey, been legitimated by the subsequent...
To continue reading
Request your trial