HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0920 and id is 1 raw text is: XII CLARK & FINNELLY, 44 HAMMERSLEY 1'. DE BIEL [1845]
action? After the execution of the first inquisition, which inquisition was set aside
on a point of form, previously to the second inquisition, this convey-[44]-ance is
made, and it is alleged to have been made with a fraudulent view. Now where there
is a fraudulent transaction so stated for the purpose of defeating an instrument,
which has been executed with a view and purpose of fraud, is it not proper that all
the circumstances connected with the fraud should be stated on the record? And
can it be said that any of these circumstances so stated, giving the history of the fraud,
are immaterial? Can we, in the first instance, decide that they are immaterial, before
the cause comes to a hearing? For it is nothing more than a history of the cause,
the manner in which the deed was executed, and the purpose and motive for which
it was executed. When we are investigating a fraud, as I think I stated in the
Court below, the motives for the fraud are very often a material subject for enquiry.
Now the information here assigns two motives for the fraud; it assigns that one
motive of the fraud was to defeat the process of the Attorney General; and it assigns
that another motive was to defeat the bond fide creditors. Actual fraud might be
proved on this information, when it came to a hearing-a declaration made by the
party, stating that his object was to commit a fraud. Express fraud would vitiate
a deed at common law. If a deed was executed with the express object of defeating
creditors, it would be a fraudulent act at common law, and would be sufficient to
set aside the deed. I apprehend that it cannot be considered in this stage of the cause,
that those facts are immaterial; you cannot aver positively (as was observed by
both my noble and learned friends) that it is impossible that they can be material
at the hearing of the cause. I think the judgment of the Court below ought to be
affirmed.
Mr. Kenyon asked for leave to demur.
Lord Brougham :-No; you have elected one course, and when that fails you are
not to fall back on the other.
The orders were affirmed, with costs.
[45] CHARLES HAMIWERSLEY,-Appellant; BARON THOMSON WILLIAM
ANDREW CHARLES DE BIEL, an infant, by W. J. BLAKE, his next friend,
-Respondent [Feb. 25, March 3, 1845].
[Mews' Dig. xii. 789, 804; S.C., below, sub nom. De Biel v. Thomson, 3 Beav. 469.
Applied in Williams v. Williams, 1868, 37 L. J. Ch. 857; Thomson v. Simpson,
1870, L.R. 9 Eq. 506; Coles v. Pilkington, 1874, L.R. 19 Eq. 178; In re Badeock,
1880, 17 Ch. D. 366. Distinguished in Wardis Case, 1870, L.R. 10 Eq. 663.
On point as to Statute of Frauds, see Maddison v. Alderson, 1883, 8 A.C. 473;
M'Manus v. Cooke, 1887, 35 Ch. D. 691; Miller and Aldworth, im., v. Sharp
(1899), 1 Ch. 622; In re Holland, W.N., 1901, 72.]
Marriage Articles; Construction--Signature; Statute of Frauds.
A representation made by one party for the purpose of influencing the conduct of
another, and acted on by him, will in general be sufficient to entitle him to
the assistance of a Court of Equity, for the purpose of realising such repre-
sentation.
And so in proposals of marriage: if the parent, or his agent, deliberately holds
out inducements to the suitor to celebrate the marriage, and he consents and
celebrates it, believing it was intended that he should have the benefits so held
out to him, a Court of Equity will give effect to the proposals.
Proposals of marriage written by the lady's brothers, acting by her father's autho-
rity, stated that Mr. J. P. T. (the father) also intends to leave a further sum
of £10,000 in his will to Miss T., to be settled on her and her children, the
disposition of which, supposing she has no children, will be prescribed by the
will of her father. These are the bases of the arrangement, subject of course,
to revision; but they will be sufficient for Baron B. to act upon. Baron B.,
upon receiving the proposals. provided a jointure as required by them for his
intended wife, and then married her. In the settlement, afterwards executed,
1312](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0920&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)