Ward v Shallet
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 July 1750 |
| Date | 26 July 1750 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 28 E.R. 11
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
waed . shallet, July 26, 1750. Settlement after marriage by husband on wife and children, on her agreeing with her; friends privity, to part with her contingent interest; good against his creditors.- [Supplement, 254.] (See Beaumont v. Thorpe, 1 Ves. sen. 27, and Supplement, p. 25.) A wife having a contingent interest under a bond given by husband on the marriage, but no judgment entered up, nor any trustees added for her, had also a lease of the 12 WARD V. SHALLET ? VES. S^N. 17; corn-meter's office left her by the will of her father, whose executor would not assent to the husband's sale thereof, unless he made a further provision for her. But on a meeting with her friends, she agrees, upon settling part of the money arising from the sale for her separate use during her husband's life, and afterward for the children of the marriage, she will part with her interest under the bond; [17] the other part of the money to go to the husband ; who becomes bankrupt. The bill was brought by the assignees under the commission to subject her separate property ; that the transaction was not to secure the bond, but to protect the husband's estate against creditors. No consideration from the wife's joining; for the office vesting in the husband, he might have disposed of it without her, which would have bound her. In the case of Richardson, August 1749, Deputy Marshal for life, becoming bankrupt, as he might by his acts anticipate the profits, though not dispose of the office directly, his Lordship, though he did not take away the office (because that was in the power of the city) yet appropriated the profits for the assignees. So of the profits of Blackerby's office of taking care of the House of Lords, held assets for his creditors (S. 0. 1 Ves. sen. 347), in almost every case of this kind there is something hard, where the wife is in danger of losing all her provision, as his Lordship thought in Fitser v. Fitser (2 Atk. 511), February 22, 1742, yet could not help it. There.a wife had an annuity of 50 for life charged on land : her husband on agreement to live separate, assigned this annuity during their joint lives, in trust to pay her part for her separate maintenance, and part for her infant child; and agreed, that if he was sued for her separate debts, the trust for her should be void; he became insolvent, and assigned over all his estate to his creditors : on a bill by the wife, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goldsmith v Russell
...(2 Ves. sen. 304), Wlieeler v. Caryl (Amb. 121), Campion v. Cotton (17 Ves. 263, a.), Brown v. Jones (1 Atk. 188), Ward v. Shallet (2 Ves. sen. 16), Wood v. Dixie (7 Q. B. 892), 2 Sugden on Powers, p. 250, ed. 6. Mr. Wickens, for the Attorney-General, submitted, that if the Plaintiff succee......