Wethered v Wethered
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 February 1828 |
| Date | 23 February 1828 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 757
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Agreement. Public Policy.
[183] wethbred . wethered. Jan. 25, Feb. 23, 1828. Agreement. Public Policy. An agreement between two sons to divide equally whatever property they may receive from their father in his lifetime, or become entitled to under his will, or by descent or otherwise, from him, is not contrary to public policy, but will be enforced in equity. By articles of agreement, bearing date the 28th of October 1805, and made between the Plaintiff, George Thomas Wethered, of the one part, and the Defendant, Charles Wethered, of the other part, after reciting that the Plaintiff and Charles Wethered were the two only sons of George Wethered, who, it was presumed, stood seised and possessed of divers freehold and copyhold estates, arid also a considerable personal estate, part of which the Plaintiff and Charles Wethered expected to be given, devised or bequeathed to them by their said father, and in case he should die intestate, then the Plaintiff and Charles Wethered, or one of them, by descent, by the Statute of Distribution of Intestates' Estates, or by surrender arid the custom or customs of the manor or manors in which such of the premises as were copyhold were situate, or by some other ways or means would become entitled to such freehold and (1) 1 Atk. 450. tfhitmore v. Francis, 8 Price, 616. The note mentioned above was as follows:-" Whitman v. Francis, Excheq. 14th December 1820. Uill filed to discover whether a promissory note was not given on an usurious contract, [t stated the note to be given for money lent, and that no interest had been paid ; and prayed discovery merely by way of defence to action on the note. Demurrer, that the discovery would occasion a loss of the money lent on the note, allowed." 758 WETHERED V. WETHEEED 2 SIM. 184. copyhold estates, and a part of the personal estate of their father, jointly with their sister or otherwise : and further reciting that it had been agreed, between the Plaintiff and Charles Wethered, that such part of the real and personal estates as they or either of them should derive, or become possessed of, or entitled unto under the will of their father, or which should come to them or either of them by descent or deed, or in any other manner whatsoever, should be divided between the Plaintiff and Charles Wethered, in equal shares, first paying thereout all reasonable costs, charges and expenses which they or either of them might be put unto, in or about the premises ; and fur-[184]-ther reciting that it had been also agreed between the same parties that, in case George Wethered the father should, in his lifetime, advance any sum or sums of money to them or either of them, to place them or either of them in business, or otherwise to advance them in life, such sum or sums of money should go and be taken as part of their moiety or half part or share to arise and become paid and payable from their father in manner aforesaid; it was witnessed that the Plaintiff, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, did covenant and agree with Charles Wethered, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, that the Plaintiff, his heira, executors, administrators or assigns would, immediately upon the decease of his father, or within six months next after, by deed or otherwise, convey, assign or pay unto Charles Wethered, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, one full moiety of all such real and personal estate as the Plaintiff might become possessed of or entitled unto under the will of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lim Geok Hian v Lim Guan Chin
...National Westminster Bank Plc v Morgan [1985] AC 686 (folld) Sharp v Leach (1862) 31 Beav 491; 54 ER 1229 (distd) Wethered v Wethered (1828) 2 Sim 183; 57 ER 757 (folld) Cheong Yuen Hee and V Thinagaran (William Oh & Pnrs) for the plaintiff Harry Elias and Regina Quek (Harry Elias & Pnrs) f......
-
Meek v Kettlewell
...(3 P. Wms. 132); Grey v. Kentish (1 Atk. 280); Wright v. Wright (1 Ves. 409); Carleton v. Leighton (3 Mer. 667); Wethered v. Wethered (2 Sim. 183); Hyde v. White (5 Sim. 524); Lyde v. Mynn (1 Myl. & K. 683) ; Wheatley v. Purr (1 Keen, 551); Tufnell v. Constable (8 Sim. 69); Holloway v. Head......
-
A P Holroyd and Others v J G Marshall and Others
...both. That was followed by Lord Hardwicke in Wright v. Wright (1 Ves. Sen. 409), and by Vice Chancellor Shadwell in Wethered v. Wethered (2 Sim. 183); and the same rule had been acted on by Lord Eldon in Harwood v. Tooke (id. 192). [Lord Brougham: These two cases last named turned entirely ......
-
Stack v Royse
...G. & Jones, 570. Jones v. RoeUNK 3 Term Rep. 93. Hobson v. TrevorENR 2 P. Wms. 192. Beckley v. Newland Ibid, 182. Wetherhed v. WetherhedENR 2 Sim. 183. Smith v. BakerENR 1 Y. & C., C. C., 229. Carleton v. LeightonENR 3 Mer. 672. Mornington v. Keane 2 De. G. & J. 292. Metcalfe v. The Archbis......