Thompson v Harrison
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 April 1787 |
| Date | 30 April 1787 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 29 E.R. 1196
IN CHANCERY, LORD THURLOW.
thompson versus harrison. In Chancery, Lord Thurlow. April 30, 1787. Plaintiff by examining a defendant as a witness, precludes himself from obtaining any relief by decree against him ; and if from the nature of the case, that defendant would be primarily liable to plaintiff, and another defendant only in a secondary degree, the plaintiff has lost his remedy altogether. In cases of frauds on marriage, though the husband be a party to such fraud, yet his interest cannot be affected, if either wife or child (who is an object of such settlement) be living. The plaintiff George Thompson, and the defendant John Thompson were brothers, and were uncles of the defendant Jonathan Harrison. The plaintiff purchased an estate in the north of England for the sum of £1450, of which the plaintiff paid about £1200, and the residue was paid by the defendant John Thompson, and the conveyance was made to John ; but as the plaintiff had given his bond to John Thompson for so much of the purchase money as was advanced by him, it appeared, and indeed was agreed on all hands, that John was a trustee of this estate for the plaintiff. A treaty of marriage having taken place between the defendant Jonathan Harrison and a Miss [345] Liddell, the defendant John Thompson wrote a letter to the plaintiff, acquainting him of this circumstance, and that Jonathan Harrison being desirous of making a settlement on his intended wife, had proposed to purchase the premises of the plaintiff for a sum of £500, in order to make such settlement; and that he (John Thompson) had agreed to sell them to Jonathan Harrison for that sum. In answer to this letter, the plaintiff wrote to John Thompson to say that he did not mean to sell the premises, but on the contrary had it in contemplation to reside upon them as soon as ever he was able to leave off business ; and nothing further passed in respect of the purchase. But it appeared that about this time the defendants John Thompson and Jonathan Harrison represented to the father of Miss Liddell, that these premises were the property of John Thompson, and were intended to be advanced or given by him to his nephew to be settled on the marriage. Accordingly the marriage was had, and the premises were thereupon settled by John Thompson on Jonathan Harrison for life, remainder to the wife for life, remainder to the right heirs of Jonathan Harrison in fee. Under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re The Estate of John Eakins Browne, Appellant; Theobald Billing, Respondent
...4 Russ. 131. Clarke v. WrightENR 6 H. & N. 876. Nairn v. Prowse 6 Ves. 752. Turton v. Benson 1 P. W. 495. Thompson v. HarrisonENR 1 Cox, 345. The Earl of ClarendonENR 10 Hare, 126. Houston v. BarryUNK 5 Ir. Eq. Rep. 294. Heap v. TongeENR 9 Hare, 90. CHANCERY REPORTS. 283 1862. Oh. Appeal. C......