Wright v Goff
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 April 1856 |
| Date | 25 April 1856 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 1087
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 25 L. J. Ch. 803; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 481; 4 W. R. 522. See In re Turner's Settled Estates, 1884, 28 Ch. D. 216.
[207] wright v. goff. April 25, 1856/Y*y ò'' [S. C. 25 L. J. Ch. 803; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 481; 4 W. R. 522. See In re Turner's Settled Estates, 1884, 28 Ch. D. 216.] A. B., a tenant for life, had a power of appointing a fund amongst her children. There being only one object of the power, viz., C. D., who was a married woman, an arrangement was come to between A. B. and C. D. and her husband, whereby 1088 WEIGHT V. GOFF aBBAV.K* the whole fund was appointed to C. D. and then resettled, giving an interest to C. D.'s children and to E. F., a stranger. The husband survived. Held, that the transaction was binding on him and his representatives. On an application to reform a deed, the burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff, the Court examines the evidence very jealously, and must be convinced that there has been a mistake on the part of all parties to the deed, before it will reform it. A valid settlement was revoked by a subsequent deed-poll, executed for a different purpose. The mistake being proved, the latter was reformed. The testator, by his will, dated in 1800, gave his real and personal estate to trustees, in trust as to one-third to his daughter, Mvs. Wright, for life, with a power which, it was assumed, authorized an appointment to her children only. The other two-thirds were subject to similar trusts in favour of Mrs. Wright's two sisters. Mrs. Wright had two daughters only, viz., Emily, the wife of Mr. Skey, and Helen, who died unmarried in 1837. The Plaintiff, Eobert Henry Wright, though some way connected, was stated by the Court to be, " in law, an entire and complete stranger to the family." By indenture of appointment, dated the 9th of April 1838, and made between Mrs. Wright of the first part, Mr. and Mrs. Skey of the second part, and three trustees of the third part, reciting the will of the testator, and reciting that Mrs. Wright, and also Mr. and Mrs. Skey were desirous that the power of appointment given to Mrs. Wright by the will should be exercised by appointing £2000, part of the personal estate, consisting of stock in Court, over which she had such power of appointment, for the benefit of Eobert Henry Wright, and by appointing the remainder of such stock, and also the remainder of the property of the testator, over which Mrs. Wright had any power of appointment, for the [208] benefit of Mrs. Skey and her children; but that, inasmuch as it was considered that such appointment would exceed the scope and purport of the power given to Mrs. Wright, and would not be authorized thereby, Mr. and Mrs. Skey had consented and agreed to join and concur in the indenture of appointment, for the purpose of testifying their approbation to such exercise or attempted exercise of the power, and for satisfying and giving effect to the same; and in order and to the intent that such appointment might be construed and taken as an appointment made solely in favour of Mrs. Skey, ana as a resettlement, by Mr. and Mrs. Skey, of such appointed property, estate, funds and premises, upon the trusts and in manner thereinafter mentioned; it was witnessed that, in pursuance of such desire, and in consideration of natural love and affection, Mrs. Wright, in exercise of the power for that purpose reserved in the will of the testator, and of all other powers enabling her in that behalf, thereby, at the request and by the direction of Mr. and Mrs. Skey, appointed, and Mr. and Mrs. Skey covenanted, granted and agreed with the trustees, that the one-third part of the stock should, after the decease...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lady Mary Topham v The Duke of Portland
...37); Alexander v. Alexander (2 Ves. sen. 640); White v. St. Em-be, (1 Ves. & Bea. 399); Goldmiil v. Goldsmid (2 Hare, 187); Wright v. Go/ (22 Beav. 207); Lassence v. Tierney (1 Mac. & Gor. 551 ; 2 Hall & Tw. 115); Sawnden v. Vauli&r (4 Beav. 115 ; 1 Cr. Ph. 240); PaZmw [527] v. Wheekr (2 Ba......
-
Love v. Love, (2013) 417 Sask.R. 5 (CA)
...only necessary to prove the mistake of the grantor, the only party who executed it. Wright v. Goff (1856) 22 Beav. 207, 25 L.J. Ch. 803, 52 E.R. 1087, at 1090. It seems clear to me that the same principle applies to this declaration which was executed only by the deceased. A deed poll is on......
-
Ashford Cole Plaintiff v Dorothy Rey Defendant Albertina John First Added Defendant Development Corporation Second Added Defendant [ECSC]
...Alban Dos Santos et al (1984) CA No. 6/1 982 35 13 Snell's Equity 28th Edition, 612 Fowler v. Fowler (1859) HD&J 265 36 Wright v. Geoff (1856) ER 1087 37 18 Hals 3rd Ed page 397 para 775, and page 398 para 757 38 Milroy v. Lord (1862) 4De GF&J 264 at 274 39 Price v. Price (1851) 14 Beav......
-
Young v Halahan
...M. & G. 572. Allen v. AnthonyENR 1 Mer. 282. Harris v. PepperellELR L. R. 5 Eq. 1. Burnell v. BrownENR 1 Jac. & W. 168. Wright v. GoffENR 22 Beav. 207. Earl of Bradford v. Earl of RomneyENR 30 Beav. 431. Shackleton v. SutcliffeENR 1 De G. & Sm. 609. Torrance v. BoltonELR L. R. 14 Eq. 124. S......