Vansittart v Vansittart
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 March 1858 |
| Date | 11 March 1858 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 44 E.R. 984
BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD CHELMSFORD AND THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. 4 K. J. 62; 27 L. J. Ch. 222, 289; 4 Jur. (N. S.), 276, 519; 6 W. R. 238, 386. See Hamilton v. Hector, 1871-72, L. R. 6 Ch. 705; L. R. 13 Eq. 511; Hart v. Hart, 1881, 18 Ch. D. 681; Cahill v. Cahill, 1883, 8 App. Cas. 430; Butler v. Butler, 1885, 14 Q. B. D. 834; 16 Q. B. D. 378; In re Ullee, 1885, 53 L. T. 713.
[249] vansittart v. vansittart. Before the Lord Chancellor Lord Chelmsforcl and the Lords Justices. March 10, 11, 1858. [S. C. 4 K. & J. 02; 27 L. J. Ch. 222, 289; 4 Jur. (N. S.), 276, 519; 6 W. R. 238, 386. See Hamilton v. Hector, 1871-72, L. E. 6 Ch. 705; L. E. 13 Eq. 511 ; Hart v. Hart, 1881, 18 Ch. D. 681; Oahill v. Cahill, 1883, 8 App. Gas. 430; Sutler v. Butler, 1885, 14 Q. B. D. 834; 16 Q. B. D. 378; In re Ullee, 1885, 53 L. T. 713.] By a memorandum of agreement made between a husband and his wife who was suing him for a divorce, it was agreed that a deed of separation should be executed, containing, among other provisions therein mentioned, provisions that two of their children should be placed entirely in the custody of the wife, that none of the children should be sent to any school in Berkshire, or at a less sum than 60 a year for each child, and that neither of the two eldest sons should be sent to any school without the written consent of both husband and wife, unless to certain specified places of education. Held, that the provisions as to the children were contrary to public policy, as interfering with the due discharge of the father's duties with respect to them; and that on this ground, apart from all other objections, a decree for the execution of the deed of separation could not be made, though, if it had been executed, the insertion of those provisions would not have made it wholly void. This was an appeal by the Plaintiff from an order of Vice-Chancellor Wood, allowing a demurrer to her bill, which was filed against her husband for the purpose of enforcing an agreement entered into between them for the execution of a deed of separation. The material statements in the bill were to the following effect:-That in May 1845 the Plaintiff arid Defendant intermarried, and an ante-nuptial settlement was made. That there were four children of the marriage-Sidney Nicholas, aged ten years; Clement Arthur, aged seven years; Alice Rosalie, aged nine years, and Cyril Bexley, five years. That in January 1857 the Plaintiff commenced a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for a separation, on the ground of adultery and cruelty, but that, [250] negociations for an arrangement by means of a separation deed having been commenced, na libel had been brought in, the suit having from time to time stood over. That on llth March 1857 the following memorandum was drawn up and signed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant:- " Be Vansittart and Fansittart.-Instructions for deed of separation and covenants.- Trustee.-A. B., of the Middle Temple, esquire, barrister-at-law, trustee on behalf of Mrs. Vansittart. The deed to contain all usual and necessary covenants, clauses and 2DBQ. fcJ.Ml. VANSITTABT t'. VANSITTART 985 agreements, to protect Mrs. Vansittart from molestation, &c., to receive her present separate income under the marriage settlement or otherwise, stated at 180 per annum. Mr. Vansittart to allow her the further annual sum of 120, payable half-yearly, to make up her present income to 300 per annum, to be payable out of the income receivable by Mr. Vansittart under the marriage settlement. Mr. Vausittart upon due payment of separate income (sic) secured by trustee's covenant from debts of Mrs. Vansittart. The children.-Mrs. Vansittart to have the custody of two of the children, viz., the daughter (after she is removed from school at Midsummer) and one of the sons, viz., Cyril Bexley. And in the meantime, Sidney to be given into her charge for half the intervening time, viz., the first ten weeks Sidney to be with Mr. Vansittart, and the remaining period with Mrs. Vansittart, and Arthur also, if Mr. Vansittart does not object, and Alice to spend the Easter holidays with Mrs, Vansittart: Mr. Vansittart to have the custody of the other two sons, viz., Sidney Nicholas and Clement Arthur, should he desire it, on the daughter joining her mother. In the event of the death of either Alice Rosalie or Cyril Bexley, or both, Mr. Vansittart to be at liberty to place either one or both of the surviving chil-[251]-dren in their stead under her charge, but no reduction to be made in the allowance to Mrs. Vansittart. The children not to be sent to any school in Berkshire, or at a less sum than 60 a year for each child. That...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunt v Hunt
...Westmeath v. Westmeath (Jac. 126); St. John v. St. John (11 Ves. 532); Hope, v. Hope (4 De G. M. & G. 328); Vamsittart v. Fansittari (2 De G. & J. 249; S. C. 4 Jur. (N. S.) 519); Worrall v. Jacob (3 Mer. 268); Frampton v. Fmmpton (4 Beav. 287, 293); Fletcher v. Fletcher (2 Cox, 99); and 20 ......
-
Crouch v Waller
...depended on the separation deed, which, by the express terms of it, is no longer operative. They referred to Fansiltart v. Vansitiart (2 De G. & J. 249) ò Wilson [309] v. JFikon (1 H. of Lords Ca. 538); Elworthy v. Bird (2 Sim. & St. 372); Bennett v. Cooper (9 Beav. 252); Wilson v. Mushett ......
-
Vansittart v Vansittart
...the Defendant, Charles Vansittart, by A. B. her Next Friend, and the said A. B. Plaintiffs and Charles Vansittart Defendant. Affirmed, 2 De G. & J. 249; 44 E. R. 984 (with note). Husband and Wife. Articles of Separation. Divorce Suit. Children, Custody and Education of. Public Policy. Speci......
-
Proctor v Robinson
...M. & G. 982); Westmeath v. Westmeath (Jacob, 126, and 1 Dow. & C. 519); Hope v. Hope (8 De G. M. & G. 731) ; Fansittarl v. Fansittart (2 De G. & J. 249); HMey v. Westmeath (6 Barn. & Ores. 200); Simpson v. Lord Howden (3 Myl. & Or. 97); Durant v. Titley (7 Price, 577); Gocksedge v. Cocksedg......