Vance v Vance
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 1839 |
| Date | 30 July 1839 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 48 E.R. 1076
ROLLS COURT
[605] vance v. vance. July 30, 1839. A. B. gave directions to his bankers to invest a sum of money in the joint names of himself and wife, and their brokers accordingly made the purchase: A. B. died after the contract, but before the transfer had been completed. Held, that the wife was entitled to the stock by survivorship. On the 22d of March 1837, the intestate, George Vance, being confined to his bed by an accident which afterwards occasioned his death, signed an order on his bankers, Messrs. Coutts & Co., in the following form :- " Gentlemen,-Be so good as to buy a thousand consols for me and my wife, ' old account/-I am your obedient servant." Having signed this order, he desired that it should be sent, on the ensuing day, to Messrs. Coutts & Co. Mra. Vance kept the order in her possession, and from the distress of mind under which she at the time laboured, did not send the order the following day, nor on the next succeeding day (being Good Friday); but the order was forwarded, on Saturday the 25th of [606] March, to Messrs. Coutts & Co., who acted on it, and sent to the intestate the following letter:- "Strand, London, 25th March, 1838.-Sir,-According to your direction, our broker has purchased 1000 consolidated 3 per cents, at 90^ for 904 10 0 Brokerage . . . . .150 905 15 Q To be transferred into the joint names of yourself and Mrs. Vance on Tuesday next, when the cost will be charged to your account." The testator died in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Talbot v Cody
...2 Vern. 683. Nash v. NashUNK 2 Mad. 133. Dummer v. PitcherENR 5 Sim. 35; 2 M. & K. 262. Low v. CarterENR 1 Beav. 526. Vance v. VanceENR 1 Beav. 605. Gosling v. GoslingENR 3 Drew. 335. Staoketon v. StapletonENR 14 Sim. 186. Howard v. OakesENR 3 Exch. 143. Lucas v. LucasENR 1 Atk. 270. Vanden......
-
Bailey v Collett
...for valuable consideration, it is irrevocable; Walsh v. Whttamb (2 Esp. 565); Smart v. Sandars (5 Com. B. Eep. 895); Vance v. Vance, (1 Beav. 605); Spooner v. Xandilands (1 Y. & C. (C. C.) 390); and if acted on after the death of the party, bondfale and without notice, it will be valid ; Ca......
-
Drew v Martin
...the wife : Soar v. Foster (4 K. & J. 152) ; Christ's Hospital v. Hmlgin (2 Vern. 683); Kingdom v. Bridge* (2 Vern. 67); Vance v. franca (1 Beav. 605). The husband was clearly liable to a decree for specific performance, and the remaining instalments must therefore be paid out of his persona......
-
Kiddill v Farnell
...a complete gift. Then, did the fact of the transfer taking place after the death vitiate the transaction 1 Clearly not. F'ance v. Prance (1 Beav. 605). That the legal interest had been effectually transferred could not be denied; but, if so, there was a clear beneficial interest in the stoc......