Walsh v Trevannion
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 March 1848 |
| Date | 21 March 1848 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 60 E.R. 841
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 12 Jur. 344. See Mellor v. Porter, 1883, 25 Ch. D. 159.
Deed. Mistake. Infant. Decree. Day to shew Cause.
16 SIM. 178. WALSH V. TREVANNION 841 [178] walsh v. tkevannion. March 15, 16, 18, 21, 1848. [S. C. 12 Jur. 344. See Mellor v. Porter, 1883, 25 Ch. D. 159.] Deed. Mistake. Infant. Decree. Day to shew Cause. A. being seised of estates in C., and having proposed to settle a certain part of them on his marriage, a settlement was made of all bis estates in C., which were intended to be specified and described in the schedule thereunder written, "hit which schedule is not intended to abridge or affect the generality of the description hereinbefoi-e contained." Held, from the proposal and other evidence, that the words in italics were inserted by mistake. At the hearing of a cause to which an infant, who was the first tenant in tail under a settlement, was a Defendant, the Court made a declaration as to the intention of the parties to the settlement, which bound the infant's inheritance and sent a case for the opinion of a Court of law as to the true construction of the settlement; but it refused to give the infant a day to shew cause against the decree until the hearing on the equity reserved, when it would appear whether the infant would be required to execute a conveyance or not. By a deed, dated in 1823, certain estates in Cornwall were limited to such uses as Mr. Trevannion and his son should appoint. In 1824 they mortgaged part of those estates to the Bank of England. In 1827, the son being engaged to a lady whom he shortly afterwards married, his father and he proposed, in writing, to settle the estates comprised in the mortgage (subject to that incumbrance) on the father for life, remainder to the son for life, remainder to the first and other sons of the latter in tail; and the proposal was submitted to and approved of by the lady's mother and her professional adviser. The settlement made on the marriage, after reciting the deed of 1823 and the mortgage to the bank, limited, in the manner proposed, all the estates of the father and son in Cornwall which were intended to be specified and described in the schedule thereunder written ; but which schedule, it added, was not intended to abridge or affect the generality of the description thereinbefore contained. The schedule comprised only the property mortgaged to the bank. In and after 1829 the father and son...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walsh v Trevanian
...Defendants and between The same Plaintiffs, and Ann Holcombe and Others Defendants. S. C. 19 L. J. Q. B. 458; 14 Jur. 1134: in Equity, 16 Sim. 178; 12 Jur. 344. Discussed and distinguished, Rooke v. Kensington, 1856, 2 K. & J. 763. Referred to, Pallikelagatha Marcar v. Sigg. 1880, L. R. 7 I......
-
Rooke v Lord Kensington
...in the trustee. Mr. Willcock, Q.C., and Mr, Shapter, for the Plaintiff, cited Moseley v. Motteux (10 M. & W. 533), Walsh v. Trevannion (16 Sim. 178), [759] Marquis of Exeter v. Marchioness of Exeter (3 My. & Cr. 321), Doe v. Meyridc (2 C. & J. 223), and Jams v. Smith (I Ph. 244). Mr. Bolt, ......
-
White v Anderson
...; Alexander v. Crosbie (LI. & G. temp. Sag. 145); Harbidge v. Wogan (5 Hare, 258); Pearce v. Verbehe (2 Bear. 333); Walsh v. Teevanion (16 Sim. 178); Baily v. Lloyd (5 Russ. 330) Cole v. Knight (3 Mod. 277) ; Duke of Bedford v. Marquis of Abercont (1 5Iy1. & Cr. 312); Exeter v. Exeter (3 My......