clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 372   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

872 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
cerned, I do not look upon it as simply void, because its stipu-
lations and provisions appear to me to have been beneficial to
her.
Indeed, none of the cases to which I have been referred, or
which I have met with in the books, treat these settlements as
merely void, and incapable of confirmation by the wife after
she attains the competent age. The cases, on the contrary,
show that the 'infant may give efficacy to the settlement,
either by an express confirmation after attaining majority,
or by some act which would make it inequitable in her to
impeach it.
In Durnford vs. Lane, 1 Brown's Oh. Cases, 106, Lord
Thurlow, after expressing a strong opinion against the validity
of settlements by female infants in contemplation of marriage,
even when made in consideration of a competent settlement
upon her, says, " if she has a settlement from her husband, and
after his death she takes possession of it, he thought she would
be bound by the equity arising from her own act, and this
observation he made, as he remarked, in deference to the cases
of Cannel vs. Buckle, 2 Peere Wms; 243; and Harvy vs.
Ashley, S Atk., G15." In this latter case, the opinion of Lord
Hardwicke is clearly expressed in favor of the validity of the
agreement of an infant, when confirmed by his acts after the
disability is removed. And in the case of Milner vs. Lord
Harewood, 18 Ves; 259, the sanction of Lord Eldon is given
in the most unqualified terms to the doctrine upon this subject,
as stated in Durnford vs. Lane, it being in the former case
held, that a female infant was not bound by an agreement to
settle her real estate upon marriage, if she did not when of
age choose to ratify it, and that nothing but her own act, after
the period of majority, could make it binding upon her. The
opinion of the Master of Rolls, in the case of Simon vs. Jones,
13 Cond. Eng. Oh. Rep., 78, is in accordance with the pre-
vious cases, in reference to the capacity of the infant to con-
firm the settlement after attaining the required age. In pro-
nouncing against the settlement in that case, he said a good
title could not be made under it, " unless by the confirmation
of the wife after the age of twenty-one."

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 372   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives