The Position in Law of Women; A Concise and Comprehensive Treatise on the Position of Women at Common Law as Modified by the Doctrines of Equity and by Recent Legislation - Together with the Married Women's Property Acts, 1870, 1874, 1882, the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1883, Relating to Taking Acknowledgements, and the Postal Regulations, 1883, Affecting Married Women (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1883 Excerpt: ...of intention, and these two classes are not always easy to reconcile, but it must be remembered that the question to be decided upon in each case is one more of fact than of law.6 The following cases are examples of the former class: Reeve v. Hicks,1 Fitzgerald v. Lord Fauconberge, s Heather v. O'Neil,9 and these of the latter class, Whitbread v. SmithTM Corbett v. Barker11 Wood v. Wood12 Clark v. Burgh,13 Stansfield v. Hallam,1 Gleaves v. Painelb and consider also Plowden v. Hyde16 Lord Hastings v. Astley.11 Where a husband and wife, who had a joint power of appointment over an estate, the ultimate limitations of which were in default of such appointment to the use of the husband and wife in moieties in fee, executed the power by way of mortgage to secure the husband's debt, it was held that the mortgage could not, with propriety, be described as a mortgage of the wife's estate, as from the act of the wife alone, the mortgagee took nothing, the interest of the mortgagee being no part of that estate or interest which the wife singly had, and that therefore it was not a case where the wife's estate had been pledged or charged for the husband's debts.1 1 Per Lord Eldon L.C., 1 Bli. 135. 2 Woods. Wood, 7 Beav. 183. 3 In re Betton's Trust Estate, L. R. 12 Eq. at p. 557. 4 Earl of Kinnoul v. Money, 3 Swans at p. 208, notis. 5 I Ves. 173; In re Betton's Trust Estates, L R. 12 Eq. at 558. 6 Whitbread v. Smith, 3 De G. M. & G. 738. 7 2 S. &S. 403. 8 Fitz. G. 207. 9 2 D. G. & J. 299. 10 3 De G. M. & G. 727. 11 I Ans. 138; 3 ib. 775. 12 7 Beav. 183. 13 2 Coll. 221. 14 29 L. J. Chy. 173. 15 1 De G. J. & S. 87. 16 2 De G. M. & G. 684. 17 30 Beav. 260. It was said, in the case of Clinton v. Hooper, "that where "it has been clearly proved...

R519

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles5190
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1883 Excerpt: ...of intention, and these two classes are not always easy to reconcile, but it must be remembered that the question to be decided upon in each case is one more of fact than of law.6 The following cases are examples of the former class: Reeve v. Hicks,1 Fitzgerald v. Lord Fauconberge, s Heather v. O'Neil,9 and these of the latter class, Whitbread v. SmithTM Corbett v. Barker11 Wood v. Wood12 Clark v. Burgh,13 Stansfield v. Hallam,1 Gleaves v. Painelb and consider also Plowden v. Hyde16 Lord Hastings v. Astley.11 Where a husband and wife, who had a joint power of appointment over an estate, the ultimate limitations of which were in default of such appointment to the use of the husband and wife in moieties in fee, executed the power by way of mortgage to secure the husband's debt, it was held that the mortgage could not, with propriety, be described as a mortgage of the wife's estate, as from the act of the wife alone, the mortgagee took nothing, the interest of the mortgagee being no part of that estate or interest which the wife singly had, and that therefore it was not a case where the wife's estate had been pledged or charged for the husband's debts.1 1 Per Lord Eldon L.C., 1 Bli. 135. 2 Woods. Wood, 7 Beav. 183. 3 In re Betton's Trust Estate, L. R. 12 Eq. at p. 557. 4 Earl of Kinnoul v. Money, 3 Swans at p. 208, notis. 5 I Ves. 173; In re Betton's Trust Estates, L R. 12 Eq. at 558. 6 Whitbread v. Smith, 3 De G. M. & G. 738. 7 2 S. &S. 403. 8 Fitz. G. 207. 9 2 D. G. & J. 299. 10 3 De G. M. & G. 727. 11 I Ans. 138; 3 ib. 775. 12 7 Beav. 183. 13 2 Coll. 221. 14 29 L. J. Chy. 173. 15 1 De G. J. & S. 87. 16 2 De G. M. & G. 684. 17 30 Beav. 260. It was said, in the case of Clinton v. Hooper, "that where "it has been clearly proved...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

March 2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

March 2012

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 4mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

82

ISBN-13

978-1-130-01787-8

Barcode

9781130017878

Categories

LSN

1-130-01787-7



Trending On Loot