Watson v Marshall
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 1853 |
| Date | 30 July 1853 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 1074
ROLLS COURT
[363] watson v. marshall. July 30, 1853. Upon the consent of a married woman, 377, to which her husband was entitled in her right, was ordered to be paid to him. He had been insolvent eighteen years previously, and his assignee having claimed the money, the order waa rescinded, and the whole fund was ordered to be settled, notwithstanding the opposition of the assignee. To save expense, the terms of settlement of a small sum were embodied in the order. Edmund Marshall (a porter), and Matilda Marshall intermarried in 1844, but no settlement had ever been made of any property. Under the will of a testator, who died in 1852, Matilda Marshall became entitled to one-eleventh of his residuary estate, which was found to amount to 377. By an order of this Court, made on the 20th of April 1853, on the personal examination and consent of Matilda Marshall, the 377 were ordered to be paid to her husband. It then appeared, that in 1835 Edmund Marshall had taken the benefit of the Insolvent Act, and his assignee dow claimed the 377. Matilda Marshall presented this petition, praying that the 377 or a reasonable part might be settled, and that the former order might be varied. By her affidavit she stated, that although the insolvency had been mentioned in her presence, she was ignorant of its effect, or that her property would become liable, and the insolvency had passed from her recollection. She stated her husband was a porter at Messrs. F., but had no regular salary, and his earnings were precarious and for some months in the year he earned nothing. She had one child. The solicitor who acted for her was ignorant of the circumstance of the insolvency having occurred. Mr. G. L. Eussell, in support of the petition, argued that the order ought to be varied, having been made under a mistake as to its effect, and that, under the cir-[364]-cumstances, the whole fund ought to be settled; Be Cutler (14 Beav. 220); Re Kinraid (1 Drew. 326); and see Scott v. tfpashett (3 Macn. & Gor. 599). Mr. Ware, for the husband. Mr. Osborne, conlrti. The money having been ordered to be paid to the husband, he has obtained a vested interest in it, Heygale v. Annerky (3 Bro. C. C. 3(J1), to which his assignees are now entitled under the order. The wife is bound by her consent to the order, in the same way as if she had levied a fine in respect of her real 17BEAV.36S. ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. EWELME HOSPITAL 1075 estate ; May...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncombe v Greenacre
...1 Sim. (N. S.) 284 ; Faughan v. Buck, 13 Sim. 404 ; Walker v. Dnuni, 17 Beav. 482 ; Ward v. Yates, 1 Drew. & Sm. 80; Watson v. Marshall, 17 Beav. 363 ; Welch/man, In re, 1 Giff. 31; Whittem v. Sawyer, 1 Beav. 593 ; Wilkinson v. Charleswort/i, 10 Beav. 324, and see Roper's Husband and Wife, ......
-
Druitt v Willens
...Hare. 4324 Box v. Box 2 C. & L. 605. Box v. Jackson Dru. 482; 6 Ir. Eq. R. 55. Scott v. Spashett 5 Mac. & Gor. 599. Watson v. MarshallENR 17 Beav. 363. Beaumont v. CarterENR 32 Beav. 586. Fenner v. TaylorENR 1 Sim. 163. Williams v. Mayne Ir. R. 1 Eq. 579. Penfold v. MouldELR L. R. 4 Eq. 566......