1834. MURRAY v. LAWFORD AND OTHERS. the Cause, should be issued, and that the same should be executed and such Examination be returned according to the Statutes in that behalf made and provided: that Publication should be enlarged until the return of the Commission and that the Costs of the Application should be Costs in the Cause. 1834: 18th & 19th April. Deed. Inadequacy of A Wife, who had been deserted by her Husband, became entitled to a Share of an Intestate's Property, amounting to 3,609 l. The Husband, whilst he was ignorant of the Amount of the Share, assigned it in Trust for his Wife and Children, GROVES v. PERKINS. GROVES v. CLARKE. IN 1787 the Plaintiff William Groves married Sarah Perkins. There was Issue of the Marriage Two Daughters, namely, Mary, who afterwards married Thomas Salter, and Eliza, who afterwards married John Clarke. In 1792, the Plaintiff deserted his Wife and Children, and cohabited with another Woman; and he had ever since lived separate from them, without contributing, in any manner, to their support. The Plaintiff was a man of low and irregular habits, and had been, for some years, principally supported by his Brother and his Family, for whom he worked, and who, as one of the Witnesses deposed, treated him more like a Servant than as one of the Family. In August 1824 Elizabeth Porteus, a Sister of Mrs. Groves, died Intestate, leaving James Perkins, Samuel Perkins, Margaret Perkins and Mrs. Groves, subject to the payment of 10 s. a week, to himself for his life. Although the Deed recited that the Intestate's Estate was very considerable, yet, as the Administrators, who were the Wife's Brothers and Parties to the Transaction, did not disclose to the Husband the Amount of the Share, the Decd was set aside. her Brothers and Sisters, her Next of Kin. James and Samuel Perkins took out Administration to the Intestate. Mrs. Groves's Share of the Intestate's Property amounted to 3,6097. In January 1827, Samuel Groves, the Plaintiff's Brother, wrote a Letter to Mrs. Salter, which, after stating the Plaintiff to be in very indigent circumstances, concluded as follows: "Your Father has been informed (how correctly I cannot say) that he can claim your Mother's Share of the late Mrs. Porteus's Property. His relations, generally, would decline assisting him in such a Claim, conscious that he is not a fit Person to possess a large Sum of Money, and that it would be more reasonable that he should receive a regular and voluntary Allowance from his Children. But, if something should not be contributed voluntarily, he may be driven to some course (supposing the Statement correct) which may be annoying: and I now make the following Suggestion: that you, or some of your Family, shall agree to give your Father a weekly Sum, during his life; and myself, Sons and Relations, by whom he has been, as yet, in some degree assisted, will use whatever influence we possess to cause him to do what may be proper to release your Family from any future Claims on his part." Shortly after the date of this Letter, it was arrange (as the Answers alleged) between Samuel Groves, on behalf of the Plaintiff, and James and Samuel Perkins, on behalf of Mrs. Groves, that 10 s. a week should be paid to the Plaintiff, during his life, out of Mrs. Groves's Share of Mrs. Porteus's Estate, and that the Residue, and all other Property to which Mrs. Groves might, at any time, become entitled, should be assigned, for the benefit of herself and her Daughters, in the manner after mentioned; and that James and Samuel Perkins should procure a proper Deed to be prepared VOL. VI. Q 1834. GROVES v. PERKINS. 1834. GROVES v. PERKINS. for carrying the arrangement into effect. James Perkins gave instructions for the Deed to his Solicitor; and a Draft was prepared and sent to him for the purpose of being explained to the Parties interested: and, on the 27th of October 1827, the Plaintiff, accompanied by one Jones, a Grocer, attended at the Solicitor's Office, and the Deed was then read over and explained to them, and the Plaintiff executed it. The Plaintiff, however, had no professional Adviser, nor was he informed of the Amount of his Wife's Share of the Intestate's Property. The Deed was dated the 27th of October 1827; and, after reciting the Marriage of the Plaintiff and his Wife, and that there was Issue of the Marriage two Daughters; and that, in October 1792, the Plaintiff left his Family, and had since continued to live separate from them, and that his Wife had, since her separation from her Husband, maintained herself and her Children without receiving any Assistance from her Husband; that Mrs. Porteus died in August 1824, Intestate, being, at her death, possessed of very considerable Personal Estate, leaving Mrs. Groves, James Perkins, Samuel Perkins and Margaret Perkins her Next of Kin, and, as such, entitled to her Personal Estate; that, on the 25th of October 1824, Letters of Administration to the Intestate were granted to James and Samuel Perkins by the Prerogative Court of Canterbury and the Consistory Court of Chester; that the Plaintiff had proposed, and his Wife had agreed that his Wife's distributive Share of the Intestate's Personal Estate and Effects, and all other the Personal Estate, Monies and Effects of or to which the Plaintiff and his Wife, in her Right, were possessed or entitled, should be assigned to Price Williams and Margaret Perkins, upon the Trusts after declared, and that all the Personal Estate and Effects which should thereafter belong or come to Mrs. Groves, or to the Plaintiff in her Right, should be settled upon the same Trusts It was witnessed that the Plaintiff and his Wife did Assign, to the Trustees, the before-mentioned Share of the Intestate's Estate, and all other the Personal Estate, Monies and Effects of or to which the Plaintiff and his Wife in her Right, or the Plaintiff in the same Right, were or was possessed or entitled, in Trust to lay out the same upon the Securities thereinmentioned, and, out of the Interest and Dividends, to pay to the Plaintiff, for his Life, the weekly Sum of 10 s., and, subject thereto, to stand possessed of the Trust Premises in Trust for such Persons as Mrs. Groves should, by Deed or Will, appoint, and, in default of such Appointment, in Trust for the separate Use of Mis. Groves, for her life, and, after her decease, in Trust for Mrs. Salter and Mrs. Clarke their Executors, &c., equally, as Tenants in Common. The Bill was filed in February 1832, against James and Samuel Perkins, the Trustees of the Deed, and Mrs. Groves and her Children, alleging that the Deed had not been perused by any Solicitor on the Plaintiff's behalf, that it had been executed by him for a grossly inadequate Consideration, and when he was in distressed circumstances and ignorant of the amount of his Wife's Share of the Intestate's Property, which he had only lately discovered, and that his execution was procured by the fraud and imposition of the Defendants; and praying a Declaration to that effect and that the Deed was executed by him whilst he was ignorant of 1834. GROVES v. PERKINS. 1834. GROVES v. PERKINS. the amount of his Interest in the Intestate's Estate and just. The Solicitor-General and Mr. Spence, for the Plaintiff: The Deed was prepared by the Solicitor of James Perkins, who was Mrs. Groves's Brother; and he gave the Instructions for it; therefore, the proposal could not be said to have come from the Plaintiff, as the deed recites. The Plaintiff, when he executed the Deed, was in distressed circumstances and utterly ignorant of his Rights. It appears, by Jones's Evidence, that he was asked to accompany the Plaintiff to the Solicitor's Office, for the purpose, merely, of seeing that the 10 s. a week were secured to the Plaintiff. Nothing was said as to whether the Arrangement was a provident one or not, on the Plaintiff's part, nor was he then informed of his Rights or of the amount of his Wife's Share. In Gordon v. Gordon (a) Lord Eldon says: "I lay out of the Case the question of Consideration; and I think myself justified, by the authority of Cann v. Cann and other Decisions, in holding that, if a dispute arises relative to the legitimacy of Children; and the members of the Family, to maintain their character in the world, arrange their Rights among themselves, if the matter is (a) 3 Swans. 400, see 477. See also ibid. 73. * Sir C. Pepys. |