Valliant v Dodemede
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 May 1742 |
| Date | 02 May 1742 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 728
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Case 321.-The Marchioness of blandford versus The Dowager Dutchess of marlborotjgh and Others, April 21,1743. S. C. 2 Ves. 502, cited.-Where a person had a power to make a jointure without any deduction for any charges imposed, or to be imposed, parliamentary or otherwise ; this does not mean only such as are fixed and certain, but the land-tax, though a fluctuating one, is clearly within the power.(l) A bill was brought to have certain manors, lands, &c., part of the trust-estate of the first Duke of Marlborough, and settled upon the Marchioness in marriage with the Marquis of Blandford, made up a clear 3000 a year out of the assets of her late husband, whilst he was in possession, or out of the assets of Harriot, late Dutchess of Marlborough, or out of the assets of the present Duke. The case arises principally upon the will of the first Duke of Marlborough, made 726 BLANDFORD (MARCHIONESS) V. MARLBOROUGH (DUCHESS) 2 ATK. 543. the 19th of March 1721, this was a very strict settlement of his real and personal estate ; he made the persons who were then in being tenants for life only, of the whole, among which were Harriot, late Dutchess of Marlborough, and her son, the Marquis of Blandford. There were certain powers given to each particular tenant, and one of the powers is specially given to the Marquis of Blandford, to make a jointure in his mother's life-time, not exceeding 4000 per ann. and this to arise out of land which he was seised of, or out of personal estate when laid out in land. After the death of John late Duke of Marlborough, Lady Godolphin was in possession, and the Marquis of Blandford, her son, in her life-time, married the present plaintiff, and by articles of marriage, he covenanted to settle out of the estate of the late Duke of Marlborough, to the yearly value of 3000, for a jointure, over and above all reprises, pursuant to the power given him under the will of the late Duke of Marlborough. [543] July 7,1629, A settlement was executed, or deed of appointment of the lands, which recites the will of the Duke of Marlborough, the letters of denization of the plaintiff, to enable her to take lands ; recites the consideration of marriage, and covenants that the lands shall produce to the plaintiff 3000 per ann. clear of all reprizes. The plaintiff entered into the lands after the death of the Marquis of Blandford, and continued in possession till she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilkins v Fry
...of Philpot v. Hoare (2 Atk. 219 ; Amb. 488), and falls expressly within the distinction taken by Lord Hardwicke, in Valliant v. Dodemeade (2 Atk. 546), of a collusive assignment. Suppose a lease of coal-mines, subject to a royalty rent; the lessee becomes bankrupt; his assignees accept the ......
-
Between Arthur Onslow, Esq., Plaintiff; and Thomas Corrie and Abraham Mellin, Defendants
...did not keep possession. That case, therefore, is no authority for the relief prayed in this. The case of Vallitmt v. Doiloinede (2 Atk. 546) is very strong to shew how the law stood before the Act of Parliament. It was there determined that as at law an assignee of a term might assign, and......
-
Rowley v Adams
...Mr. Eichards and Mr. Bethell, contra. Mr. Stevens, for other parties. The following cases were referred to : Valliant v. Dodmiiede (2 Atk. 546), Taylor v. Shum(l B. & P. 21), Staines v. Morris (1 V. & B. 8), Onslow v. Carrie (2 Mad. 330), WWeaa v, Fry (1 Mer. 244), Burnett v. [539] Lynch (5......
-
Harley and Another v King
...again uses expressions shewing that his opinion was, that the lessor in these cases had lost his remedy at law. In P'alliant v. JJudemede ('2 Atk. 546), he says, " as he (the assignee) has made an assignment to Lornax, Valliant has no remedy for these arrears at law, and is under a necessit......