Tuer v Turner
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 July 1855 |
| Date | 04 July 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 720
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 24 L. J. Ch. 663; 3 W. R. 583.
[560] tube . turner. July 4, 1855. [S. C. 24 L. J. Ch. 663; 3 W. E. 583.] Though no assignment can be made of the reversionary interest of a married woman, so as to bind her, in the event of the death of her husband in her lifetime, and before it falls into possession, yet a perfect conveyance may be made by her and her husband, under the Fines and Eecoveries Act, of a reversionary interest in the produce of real estate directed to be sold. The testator (see same case, 18 Beav. 185), after providing for his widow, ordered, after the decease of Barbara Bell, his widow, " all his property and effects to be sold, and the money accruing out of the same to be disposed of in manner following:" he then, in effect, gave one-eighth of " the whole of his then personal property " to Sarah Tuer, afterwards the wife of William Elliott. The testator died in 1830. He had real as well as personal estate. In December 1836 William Elliott and Sarah his wife, by deed of lease and release, duly acknowledged under the Fines and Eecoveries Act (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74, s. 77), conveyed to Hugh Elliott all that one-eighth of Sarah Elliott in the hereditaments and premises devised by the will. William Elliott died in the lifetime of the testator's widow, and she died in 1852, leaving Sarah Elliott surviving her, whereupon the real estates became saleable. The simple question was, whether the conveyance [661] of the reversionary interest was valid as against Mrs. Elliott. Mr. Hobhouse, for the trustees. Mr. Shebbeare, for Sarah Elliott. It is clearly settled that the assignment by a married woman and her husband of a reversionary interest in a chose in action is unavailing against her if she happens to survive her husband. Here the testator's real estate was, by his will, imperatively "ordered" to be sold, and was thereby converted out and out, into personalty. The interest of Mrs. Elliott was therefore a reversionary interest in personal estate expectant on the death of the tenant for life, and it is so treated by the testator, who disposes of it as " the whole of my then personal property." This interest, therefore, was not assignable by her under the provisions of the Abolition of Fines and Recoveries Act (3 & 4 Will. 4, c, 74). The Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, in Hobby v. Collins (4 De G-. & Sm. 293), was of that opinion. He said, " It appears to me doubtful, at least, whether Mrs. Hughes' right to her 250 will be affected by what has been done, if she shall become a widow in her mother's lifetime. The point is not new to me, as I have had occasion more than once to think of it;" and he directed the fund to be paid into Court, and the income only paid to the married woman. As the property here is personal and reversionary, and did not fall into possession pending the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cahill v Martin
...551. Crofts v. Middleton 8 D. M. & G. 192. Sharpe v. FoyELR L. R. 4. Ch. App. 35. Briggs v. ChamberlainENR 11 Hare, 69. Ture v. TurnerENR 20 Beav. 560. Soames v. EdgeENR Johns. 669. The Mayor and Corporation of London v. Southgate 17 W. R. 197. Norris v. JacksonENR 1 J. & H. 319. Richardson......
-
Smithwick v Smithwick
...11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 514. Waring v. Waring Ubi supra. Hoby v. AllenUNK 15 Jur. 835. Briggs v. ChamberlainENR 11 Hare, 73, n. Tuer v. TurnerENR 20 Beav. 560. May v. RoperENR 4 Sim. 360. Baker v. Baker 6 H. of L. Cas. 616. Norris v. WrightENR 14 Beav. 308. Hill v. Mill 3 H. of L. Cas. 854, 855. Dr......