References: [1855] EngR 696, (1855) 2 K & J 1, (1855) 69 ER 669
Links: Commonlii
In every case of a gift to a parent by a child, shortly after the child attains majority, the Court looks with jealousy upon the transaction, more especially when the parent has, during the minority, been guardian of the child’s property, and in receipt of the rents of a considerable estate ; and throws upon the parent the onus of shewing plainly and unequivocally that the gift was made not in consequence of representations on his part, but by the spontaneous act of the child, and that the child had full knowledge of the nature of the deed by which the gift was effected? and of his own position and rights in reference to the property.
A deed was executed by a lady, five months after she came of age, disentailing part of her estates, and giving, for a nominal consideration, an estate for life in the disentailed part to her father, who, during her minority, had been her guardian, and in receipt of the rents of her estates. Held (obiter), that if a bill had been filed shortly after the transaction, either before or possibly after the lady’s marriage, which was solemnised sixteen months after the execution of the deed, the transaction could not have been supported, the deed itself not explaining the nature of the transaction, aud it not being shewn that the daughter had proper professional advice, that the nature of the transaction was explained to or understood by her, or that the gift was spontaneous or made at a time or under circumstances when she was free from parental influence.
But a bill, which, after the daughter’s decease, and nearly ten years after the execution of the deed, was filed by her husband on whom her rights had devolved, praying to have the father declared a trustee of the life interest, and an account of the rents which accrued during his daughter’s minority or afterwards, was dismissed on the ground of laches, it appearing (inter alia) that the Plaintiff was aware of all the circumstances previously to his marriage, and the Court being of opinion, upon the evidence, that, eight years before the bill was filed, both the Plaintiff and his
deceased wife had acquiesced in the transaction.
This case is cited by:
- Appeal from – Wright -v- Vanderplank ([1856] EngR 331, Commonlii, (1856) 8 De G M & G 133, (1856) 44 ER 340)
A daughter executed a deed of gift of a life-interest to her fathr, soon after she attained twenty-one, having no advice except that of her father’s solicitor who however stated that he had on that occasion acted as the solicitor of the daughter, . . - Cited – Adamson and Others -v- Paddico (267) Ltd SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 7, [2014] 1 AC 1072, [2014] 1 P & CR 24, [2014] 2 WLR 300, [2014] 2 All ER 1, [2014] JPL 745, [2014] WLR(D) 51, [2014] BLGR 249, [2014] 1 P &CR 24, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC, UKSC 2012/0089)
Land had been registered as a town or village green but wrongly so. The claimant had sought rectification, but the respondents argued that the long time elapsed after registration should defeat the request.
Held: The appeal were solely as to . .
