Page images

Articles tamed, or any part thereof, shall continue on the security

ON MARRIAGE „, - , .. - ,

Of Fkmale or the same covenant alter the expiration ot the said

"IFAyT- calendar months from the solemnization of the said intended sure his life and marriage, and shall and do, at his own costs and charges,

pay in eres Defore the expiration of the said calendar months,

effect in the name or names of the said E. F. and G. H., or the survivor of them, or the executors or administrators of such survivor, a policy or policies of assurance on the life of him the said A. B. in a sum or sums not less in the whole

than the sum of £ , then and in such case the said E. F.

and G. H. and the survivor of them, and the executors or administrators of such survivor, shall permit and suffer the

said sum of £ , secured by the said covenant as aforesaid,

or so much thereof as the said A. B. shall not think proper previously to pay or discharge, to continue on the security of the said covenant until the death of the said A. B., if the said A. B. shall in the meantime pay interest for the same at the rate of —l. per cent, per annum, and if the said A. B. shall, at his own costs and charges, keep on foot the said policy or policies of assurance (h), and the monies to be thereby respectively assured shall be a further and collateral security for the payment of the said sum of £ , and interest, intended to be secured by the said covenant, or so much thereof as shall remain unpaid, and, subject thereto, shall be in trust for the said A. B., his executors, administrators, and assigns (i). [Trustees' receipt dame, supra, p. 352 (k). Power to appoint new trustees, supra, p. 324. — Clauses for the indemnity and payment of trustees, supra, pp. 326, 327]. In Witness &c.

(h) With respect to the effect of provisoes of this nature, see supra, p. 367, n. (a), p. 381, n. (o), p. 396, n.

Provisions for (0 As tne trustees are to call in the money secured by the covenant,

keeping up the whenever the husband ceases to keep his life assured, it does not seem

policies not ne- necessary to make any provision for keeping up the policies of assurance, cessary in this ,' . ' r .

case- If, however, any circumstances should require the introduction of such

provisions into the settlement, they may be readily adapted from the forms supra, pp. 384, 423.

(&) See supra, p. 461, n. (d), as to extending the protection of the clause to mortgagees advancing money to the trustees of the settlement.


SETTLEMENT After Marriage, under the TM * °*
direction of the Court of Chancery, of the After
Fortune of a Female Infant, a Ward of the MA"RIAg*-
Court (a). Real Estate to be Sold; and the
Proceeds thereof, and the Personal Estate
to be vested in Trustees, In Trust to pay a
Sum to the Wife for her Separate Use,
and subject thereto In trust for the Separate
Use of the Wife for Life, and, after her Death,
for her Children and Issue as she shall ap-
point, and, in default, equally. Shares of
Children Dying to go to their Issue. In
Default of Children or Issue, the Funds to go
as the Wife shall appoint, and, in default of
appointment, to the Husband for Life, and, after
his Death, to the Wife or her Next of Kin of
her own blood. Special Clauses as to Main-
Tenance and Advancement.

THIS INDENTURE, made &c, Between A. B., of Parties.
&c, [the husband], and C. B., [his wife], of the first part;

(a) As to settlements on the marriages of infants generally, see supra, p. 455, n. (a).

When an infant ward of the Court of Chancery is ahout to marry, the A ward of the Court refers it to a Master to approve of a proper settlement; and, '"""'^q^ ^J*11" unless a proper settlement is proposed, the Court will not give the infant rnitted to leave to marry; (Smith v. Smith, 3 Atk. 304); and this rule holds good as marry without well in the case of a male as of a female infant. (S. C. and Earl of Ply- InTa"'" mouth v. Lewis, Dick. 801). There do not appear to be many cases as to proved of by a the nature of the settlement which the Court in such cases requires; but it Master, seems that the income should be given to the wife for the joint lives of herself and her husband for her separate use, and without power of anticipation, (Miss Watson's case, 18 Ves. 434), and the other ordinary vOL. Iv. II



I. K., of &c, [the mother and next friend of the wife, and also a trustee], of the second part; and E. F., of &c, and

To marry a .ward without the consent of the Court, is a contempt;

—and punished accordingly.

How far a husband marrying a female ward without consent is allowed an interest in the wife's property.

trusts, such as are given supra, Precedent I., p. 309, would probably be approved of.

The Court never permits an infant ward to marry without its consent; and to marry a ward of Court without consent is a contempt of Court, even though the father of the infant be living; (Butler v. Freeman, Amb. 300); or though the parties concerned had no notice the infant was a ward of Court. (Herbert's case, 3 P. Wms. 116). Most of the cases have occurred on the marriages of female wards; and the Court punishes the contempt by committing the husband until he executes (or, in some cases, undertakes to execute, Stackpole v. Beaumont, 3 Ves. 89) such a settlement of the wife's property as the Court shall approve; and in cases in which, in the prosecution of the affair, the husband has committed an indictable offence, the Court will direct him to be indicted. (Priestley v. Lamb, G Ves. 421; Millet v. Bowse, 7 Ves. 419; Pearce v. Crulchfield, 16 Ves. 48). Where, however, both the ward and the husband were foreigners, and the property was abroad, and the marriage took place in Scotland on the same day that the bill was filed constituting the wife a ward, the Court did not commit the husband, but ordered him to attend from time to time, and to be at liberty to make proposals. (Salles v. Savignon, 6 Ves. 572).

In most of the cases, the husband has been a man of no property, who married apparently for the sake of the fortune; and the Court has generally refused to give him any interest in the property; (Balls v. Coutls, 1 Ves. & Bea. 303); hut where he is of equal rank and fortune with the wife, and makes an equivalent provision for her out of his own property, it does not seem that the same rule would be enforced. (Id.). And when the husband has no property, and the contempt has not been a flagrant one, the costs of making the settlement may be paid out of the fund. (Anonym. 4 Russ. 473). And even in a very flagrant case, in which the husband had been prosecuted for, and convicted of, a conspiracy, he was allowed to receive a sum of £2000 out of his wife's fortune, in order to pay debts which he had alleged he had contracted for her. (Pearce v. Crutchfeld, 16 Ves. 48: see, however, Chassaing v. Parsonage, 5 Ves. 15). And in another case, Lord Eldon gave the husband an annuity out of the property, even during the coverture, observing, that there could not be much expectation of happiness where the husband had nothing, and the wife had the sole control over the property. (Bathurst v. Murray, 8 Ves. 74). In one case, indeed, the Court thought a settlement would be proper, in which the whole income was given to the husband for the joint lives, and a moiety of it to him, if he survived; (Stevens v. Savage, 1 Ves. jun. 154); but this was a peculiar G. H., of &c, [trustees], of the third part; [Recital of a Recitals of inwill and settlement under which the wife is entitled to a deTMwhich the

wife is entitled:

case, and a settlement giving the husband only a moiety of the income during coverture, was finally adopted.

The usual settlement directed by the Court in cases of this kind, gives Usual seftlethe income to the wife for her life for her separate use, and without meiit directed power of anticipation; the capital, after her decease, to be for the children ^ *^ mar"' of the marriage, as she shall appoint, and in default of appointment, for riage in cdnsons attaining twenty-one, and daughters attaining twenty-one or mar- tempt; rying. The disputed points are most generally the provision to be made in default of there being any children of the marriage who shall become entitled, and the provision to be made in case of the wife surviving her present husband and marrying again.

The approved trust in default of children entitled seems to be, that which —especially in

gives the fund to the wife absolutely, if she survive her husband, but if she defau't °f chllJj. . v . • , » • , .„ , , - ren of the first

die in his lifetime, gives her a power of appointment by will only, and in marriage be

default of such appointment, divides the fund among the persons of her coming entiown blood entitled under the statutes of distribution. (Millet v. Bowse, tie<*. 7 Ves. 419; Bathurst v. Murray, 8 Ves. 74; Pearce v. Crutchfield, 16 Ves. 48; Birkett v. Ilibbert, 3 My. & K. 227). The power of appointment is made exercisable by will only, in order that the wife may not be induced to execute any irrevocable instrument in her husband.s favour; and it is no objection, but rather an advantage, as tending to ensure the husband.s good behaviour, that the wife has the power of giving him an interest by will. (Bathurst v. Murray, Birkett v. Ilibbert, ubi supra). The Court considers that the object of the settlement is the benefit and protection of the ward, and not the punishment of the husband; (3 My. & K. 230); and, therefore, the absolute interest in or power to appoint the fund is always given to the wife in default of children becoming entitled. See, however, In the matter of Anne Walker, Cas. Temp. Sugd. 299, the remarks of Sir Edward Sugden, p. 325.

The Court also deems it essential that the settlement should provide The settlement for a sufficient settlement on a second marriage, in the event of the wife mus\ contain a surviving her husband and marrying again. (Well* v. Price, 5 Ves. 398; sjcondlnar/ * Halsey v. Hahey, 9 Ves. 471; Long v. Long, 2 Sim. & Stu. 119). This riage of the is sometimes done, as in the text, by settling the capital after the wife.s yl^edeath among all her children by any marriage; (Millet v. Bowse, 7 Ves. 419); but the most approved provision seems to be, that the wife shall have a power of appointing to each child of the second marriage a sum not exceeding the share of each child of the first marriage. (Bathurst v. Murray, 8 Ves. 74; Birkett v. Ilibbert, 3 My. & K. 227). It may be suggested, however, that the most suitable provision would be one of those given supra, p. 378, and p. 420, which enables the wife to give an income to the husband, as well as a capital fund to the children of the se

Of A Ward Of share of real and personal estate on attaining twenty-one

c"attkry or carrying; of the death of the testator, and the probate

Marriage. 0j fjle wilf] - And Whereas, shortly after the decease of

—oftheinsti- the said testator, a suit was instituted in the High Court

in'chancery.1' of Chancery on behalf of the said C. B. and M. K. [her sister]

and of the ile- ty the said I. K. [their mother and next friend] against

ing the trusts the said [trustees of the will and settlement], for the

of the instru- purpose of carrying: the trusts of the said will and settlements into J D , . effect, and of an ment into execution under the direction of the said Court,

"because16and said several defendants having put in their answers, the cause came on to be heard before The Right Honorable

the Master of the Rolls on the day of , when it

was ordered and decreed that the said indenture of the

day of [the settlement] and the said will of the said

[testator], so far as related to the messuages and premises, and furniture and effects thereby devised and bequeathed to the said [trustees], in trust for the benefit

of the said C. B. and M. K., ought to be performed and

cond marriage. No doubt the husband of the second marriage is a proper

object to be provided for, and in the case of Hahey v. Hahey, 9 Ves.

471, a settlement was disapproved of because it provided for a future htu

band and children only by powers over the wife's real estate, which

during her infancy the wife could not exercise.

Thejurisdic- It is to be observed, that the Court retains its jurisdiction over the

toon ol the property of a ward, after the ward has attained twenty-one, so long as the

Couri. afier the r r' . 7 , , , . .„ ,

ward has at- property remains in Court, and, if the ward marries, will order a proper

la: ned twenty- settlement to be made, or reform an improper one, unless the ward consents to the settlement, either in Court or under a commission. {Austen v. Hahey, 2 Sim. & Stu. 123; Basely.s case, cited Ibid.). And even afterthe husband.s death, and the birth of a child, a settlement was set aside at the suit of the wife. {Long v. Long, 2 Sim. & Stu. 119). This, too, was a very strong case, for the wife did not marry till the day after she came of age, and had actually joined in a petition that the fund to which she was entitled might be carried to the settlement account. But if the ward after attaining twenty-one duly consents to any settlement, of whatever nature, and whether made before or after her attaining that age, the Court will not interfere, but will order the funds to be transferred to the trustees of the settlement. (Austen v. Hahey, Long v. Long, ubi supra; Lttis v. Barnardiston, 4 Sim. 538). If, however, n husband has been discharged from custody upon his undertaking to make a settlement, the Court will not permit him to receive her fortune. (Stackpole v. Beaumont, Z Ves. 89).

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »