Thomas v Thomas
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1855 |
| Date | 01 January 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 69 E.R. 701
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 25 L. J. Ch. 159; 1 Jur. (N. S.) 1160; 4 W. R. 135. See Wall v. Stanwick, 1887, 34 Ch. D. 767; In re Biss [1903], 2 Ch. 59.
Infant's Estate. Bailiff. Statue of Limitations. Account of Rents. Mortgage of Wife's Estate. Inquiry.
[79] thomas v. thomas. 1855. [S. C. 25 L. J. Ch. 159 ; 1 Jur. (N. S.) 1160; 4 W. E. 135. See Wall v. Stanwiclc, 1887, 34 Ch. D. 767; In re Biss [1903], 2 Ch. 59.] Infant's Estate. Bailiff. Statute of Limitations. Account of Bents. Mortgage of Wife's Estate. Inquiry. When a father has entered upon the estate of his infant children the presumption is that he entered as their guardian and bailiff, and therefore the Statute of Limitations does not begin to run against the children until they attain twenty-one, and from that time at least a child has twenty years within which he may recover possession. Semble, entry by a stranger might not have this effect. If the father retain possession after the children attain twenty-one such possession, will be considered to be continued in the character in which he entered, so that an account will be directed, not from the filing of the bill, but, if necessary, from the time of entry. In an adverse suit, in the nature of an ejectment suit, against a person in no fiduciary relation to the Plaintiff, this account is only directed from the time of filing the bill. If a wife concurs with her husband in mortgaging property over which she has a power, the husband is primarily liable, unless the wife received the money for her separate use; and the Court will direct an inquiry as to this fact. In 1814 William Thomas, the father of the Plaintiff, intermarried with Dorothy Williams, and, previously to and in contemplation of such marriage, a settlement was made, whereby one undivided fourth part of certain hereditaments, therein firstly and secondly described, was conveyed by the said Dorothy Williams unto and to the use of Lloyd and Howell, their heirs and assigns, subject to one-fourth part of an annuity of £30 issuing out of the same premises, and of a mortgage debt of £400, which was charged on the entirety of such premises; upon certain trusts as to the hereditaments 702 THOMAS V. THOMAS 2K. &J. 80. firstly therein described, under which, in the events which happened, the said William Thomas became equitable owner in fee-simple of such one-fourth of those hereditaments. And as to the hereditaments secondly therein described, in trust for the appointees of Dorothy Williams, notwithstanding her coverture, by deed or will: and in default thereof and subject thereto in trust for the said Dorothy Williams for life for her separate use; and from and after her death in trust for all and every the child and children of the said Dorothy Williams by the said William Thomas to be begotten, and their respective heirs and assigns for ever, if more than one, as tenants in common, and if but one for that one child, his or her heirs and assigns. William Thomas- and Dorothy, his wife, by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Recreational Holdings (Jamaica) Ltd v Carl Lazarus & Registrar of Titles
...possession by the copyhold after his wife's death will be referred to that, and not to any adverse title’. 43 Next, in Thomas v Thomas (1855) 69 ER 701, a father entered into possession of lands to which their infant children had become entitled upon the death of his wife. In reliance on Do......
-
Joseph Constantine Steamships Line v Imperial Smelting Corporation
...of innocence, is no doubt peculiarly important in criminal cases or matters, but it is also true in civil disputes. Thus it was said in Thomas v. Thomas, 2 K. & J. 79, by Wood V.C., "possession is never considered adverse if it can be referred to a legal title." I need not multiply citatio......
-
Forster v Forster
...in the correspondence. That being so, the action will be dismissed with costs. r. w. l. (1) L. R. 5 Ch. Ap. 233. (2) 3 Atk. 123. (3) 2 K. & J. 79. (4) 3 De G. M. & G. (1) 1 Ch. Ca. 20. (2) 1 Ch. Ca. 26. (3) 4 Giff. 390. (4) 36 I. L. T. R. 108. (5) 44 I. L. T. R. 193. (6) 4 Ch. Div. 144. (7)......
-
Hyde v Pearce
...under the Limitation Act because of the peculiar nature of the position of the person claiming a title under that Act. For example, in Thomas v. Thomas (1855) Vol. 2 Kay & Johnson's Reports at page 79, a father, who entered on property, was held not to have a possessory title as against his......