References: [1856] EngR 331, (1856) 8 De G M & G 133, (1856) 44 ER 340
Links: Commonlii
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, and had informed the father that he could take no instruction from him. She afterwards consulted a different solicitor as to the validity of the deed, and corresponded with her father on the subject of the application of the rents of the property. A year afterwards she married, and negotiations took plaoe between her father and a solicitar, who acted for her intended husband and also for her, from which it appeared that she was aware of her father’s interest under the deed of gift, and made no objection to it. She and her husband executed a post-nuptial settlement, which was expressed to be subject to the father’s life estate, She died more ten years after the date of the deed of gift, and then her husband, to whom her right devolved, filed a bill to set that deed aside.
Held: 1st that it might have been set aside but for subsequent acts of acquiescence ; 2nd that there had been such acquiescence as to afford an effectual defence to the suit.
This case cites:
- Appeal from – Wright -v- Vanderplank ([1855] EngR 696, Commonlii, (1855) 2 K & J 1, (1855) 69 ER 669)
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 . .