Delivery of Deed – Prescription – Confusio – Bona Fide Consumption – Interest of Debt.-
Circumstances in which held, 1 st That debts acquired by a husband affecting his wife’s estate, do not prescribe during marriage; and that prescription does not run against these bonds during the minority of the person for whose behoof they were purchased. 2 nd, That a bond of provision granted by a brother to two sisters, in addition to their family provisions, was to be presumed in law delivered of its date, unless the contrary be proved, although it had not been delivered to them, and there was no clause dispensing with delivery. 3 d, That this bond of provision was onerous to the full extent. 4 th That the sums in said bonds were not deminished by the sisters having been alimented by their mother, while in family with her. 5 th, That the rents of the estate during Katherine’s possession were bona fide percepti et consumpti by her, and she not accountable therefor; But, 6 th, That she was not liable for behaviour as heir, but that the appellant was liable for principal and interest of the sister’s bonds, under the deduction of two-thirds of the annual rents, from their mother’s death to their brother’s death, in consideration of the aliment and necessaries furnished them by their brother.
Citations:
[1760] UKHL 2 – Paton – 43
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Land, Family
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.558284