Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Undue Influence - From: 1849 To: 1899

This page lists 15 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.


 
 Jorden, And Louisa, His Wife v Money; HL 30-Jul-1854 - [1854] UKHL J50; [1854] 10 ER 868; (1854) HL 185; (1854) 5 HL Cas 185; [1854] EngR 787; (1854) 5 HLC 185; (1854) 10 ER 868; [1854] UKPC 22
 
Tomson v Judge [1855] EngR 631; (1855) 3 Drew 306; (1855) 61 ER 920
25 Jun 1855

Kindersley VC
Legal Professions, Undue Influence
A, who was proved to have entertained feelings of peculiar personal regard for B, his solicitor, conveyed to him certain rea1 estate by a deed, on the face of it a purchase deed the consideration was £1000, the real value upwards of £1200. B. produced evidence to shew that no money passed ; that the transaction was never intended to be a purchase, but a gift for his services and from affection. B. had himself prepared the deed, and A. had no other advice. Held, that the rule is absolute that a solicitor cannot sustain a gift from his client made pending the relation of solicitor and client; and the deed was set aside.
Kindersley V-C said the solicitor must show that: 'the transaction was perfectly fair, that the client knew what he was doing, and that a fair price was given'.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Lovett v Lovett, Clerk [1857] EngR 28; (1857) 1 F and F 581; (1857) 175 ER 861
1857


Undue Influence
Undue influence, to defeat, a will, made by a person otherwise of testamentary capacity, must not be such as arises from the influence of gratitude, affection or esteem, but it must be the control of another will over that of the testator, whose faculties have been so impaired as to submit to that control, so that he has ceased to be a free agent, and has quite succumbed to the power of that controlling will.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Boyse v Rossborough; HL 1857 - [1857] 6 HLC 2; [1857] EngR 299; (1857) 5 HLC 1; (1857) 10 ER 1192
 
Proctor v Robinson [1866] EngR 99; (1866) 35 Beav 329; (1866) 55 ER 922
14 Feb 1866


Undue Influence

[ Commonlii ]
 
Hall v Hall [1868] LR 1 PandD 481
1868

Sir JP Wilde
Undue Influence, Wills and Probate
Even a reprehensible placing of pressure on a testator will not always be undue influence so as to avoid the will: "To make a good will a man must be a free agent. But all influences are not unlawful. Persuasion, appeals to the affection or ties of kindred, to a sentiment of gratitude for past services, or pity for future destitution, or the like – these are all legitimate, and may be fairly pressed on a testator. On the other hand, pressure of whatever character, whether acting on the fears or the hopes, if so exerted as to overpower the volition without convincing the judgement, is a species of restraint under which no valid will can be made. Importunity or threats, such as the testator has not the courage to resist, moral command asserted and yielded to for the sake of peace and quiet, or of escaping distress of mind or social discomfort, these, if carried to a degree in which the freeplay of the testator's judgment, discretion or wishes is overborne will constitute undue influence, though no force is either used or threatened. In a word a testator may be led but not driven and his will must be the off-spring of his own volition and not the record of someone else's".
1 Citers


 
Kempson v Ashbee (1874) LR 10 Ch App 15
1874
CA
Lord Cairns LC, James and Mellish LJJ
Undue Influence
Ashbee lent money to Sladden (the stepfather) in 1857 taking a promissory note from Miss Kempson, the stepdaughter, to repay £450 with interest. Miss Kempson was 20 at the time and living with Sladden and her mother; she had initially refused to give such a bond but at length "consented, on account, as she stated, of Sladden's ungovernable temper, and the many violent scenes . . . which she had to go through". She signed the bond in the presence of Ashbee's solicitor who said he had explained the nature of the bond and was not aware that she was under age. In 1859 and now of age she signed a second bond securing the payment of £600 and interest alleged to be due for principal interest and costs in respect of the previous loan. In 1866 Ashbee obtained judgment against Sladden but agreed not to issue execution if he could get Miss Kempson to sign another bond for the whole amount due on the judgment. This time, now 29, she signed a bond for £705 and interest. In 1872 Miss Kempson's uncle offered to compound the matter but Ashbee refused and sued Miss Kempson, who filed a bill to set aside the bonds of both 1859 and 1866. Bacon V-C declared both bonds fraudulent as against Ashbee and restrained him from further prosecuting his action at law. Held: The Court of Appeal in Chancery upheld that decision. The 1859 bond was clearly unenforceable but the court was prepared to proceed on the assumption that, in the absence of the 1859 bond, the 1866 bond might have been held not to have been given under undue influence: "The bond was given, as the Plaintiff's evidence shews, under clear pressure. Here was a creditor saying he would insist on his rights against her and her step-father unless there was a new bond for the sum already due, with arrears of interest, and she was ignorant of the fact that she had only to apply to this Court to get the previous bond declared mere waste paper. Is it possible that this can be held to be a confirmation of the first bond? To constitute a confirmation there must be knowledge of the invalidity of the document. But here there was no knowledge of the invalidity. This bond was inseparably connected with the bond of 1859 . . . and therefore those who are interested under the bond of 1866 are unable to hold it."
1 Citers


 
New Sombrero Phosphate Co v Erlanger (1877) 5 Ch D 73
26 Feb 1877
CA
Sir George Jessel MR
Undue Influence
Sir George Jessel MR said: : ". . persons in a fiduciary position must make a full and fair disclosure when they are about to sell property to those towards whom they stand in that relation"
1 Citers


 
Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Company (1878) LR 3 App Cas 1218; [1874-80] All ER 271
1878
HL
Lord Penzance, Lord Blackburn
Trusts, Undue Influence
Where a fiduciary relationship between parties may be the occasion of unfair advantage to one of them, the burden of proof lies on that party to show that he has not used that advantage for his own benefit. The value of depreciation of a phosphate mine could be measured in order to make counter-restitution in equity.
Lord Blackburn said: "It is, I think, clear on principles of general justice, that as condition to a rescission there must be a restitutio in integrum. That parties must be put in statu quo. See Lord Cranworth in Addie v The Western Bank. It is a doctrine, which has often been acted upon both at law and in equity. But there is a considerable difference in the mode in which it is applied in Courts of Law and Equity, owing, as I think, to the difference of the machinery which the Courts have at their command. I speak of these Courts as they were at the time when this suit commenced, without inquiring whether the Judicature Acts make any, or if any, what difference.
It would be obviously unjust that a person who has been in possession of property under the contract which he seeks to repudiate should be allowed to throw back on the other party's hands without accounting for any benefit he may have derived from the use of the property, or if the property, though not destroyed, has been in the interval deteriorated, without making compensation for that deterioration. But as a Court of Law has no machinery at its command for taking an account of such matters, the defrauded party, if he sought his remedy at law, must in such cases keep the property and sue in an action for deceit, in which the jury, if properly directed, can do complete justice by giving as damages a full indemnity for all that the party has lost; see Clarke v Dixon and the cases there cited.
But a Court of Equity could not give damages, and, unless it can rescind the contract, can give no relief. And, on the other hand, it can take accounts of profits, and make allowance for deterioration. And I think the practice has always been for a Court of Equity to give this relief whenever, by the exercise of its powers, it can do what is practically just, though it cannot restore the parties precisely to the state they were in before the contract."
Lord Penzance said: "The principles of equity to which I refer have been illustrated in a variety of relations, none of them perhaps precisely similar to that of the present parties, but all resting on the same basis, and one which is strictly applicable to the present case. The relations of principal and agent, trustee and cestui que trust, parent and child, guardian and ward, priest and penitent, all furnish instances in which the Courts of Equity have given protection and relief against the pressure of unfair advantage resulting from the relation and mutual position of the parties, whether in matters of contract or gift; and this relation and position of unfair advantage once made apparent, the Courts have always cast upon him who holds that position, the burden of shewing that he has not used it to his own benefit."
Contracts (Applicable Law ) Act 1990
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Gray v Binny (Gray's Trustee) [1879] SLR 17 - 210
5 Dec 1879
SCS

Undue Influence
Entail - Disentail - Reduction - "Undue Influence" as a Ground of Reduction.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Bainbrigge v Browne; ChD 1881 - (1881) 18 ChD 188

 
 Wingrove v Wingrove; 1885 - [1885] 11 PD 81

 
 Allcard v Skinner; CA 1887 - (1887) 36 Ch D 145
 
Morley v Loughnan [1893] Ch 736
1893

Wright J
Torts - Other, Undue Influence
Wright J in the context of this claim for undue influence, relied on a passage from an earlier case in which Wilmot CJ had said, "Let the hand receiving [a gift] be ever so chaste, yet, if it comes through a polluted channel, the obligation of restitution will follow it".
1 Citers


 
Liles v Terry [1895] QB 679
1895


Undue Influence
The court considered the situation of a gift by a client to her solicitor's wife.
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.