BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Mrs. Mary Nisbet or Diggens and Husband v. William Robert Gordon [1867] UKHL 2_Paterson_1470 (20 April 1867) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1867/2_Paterson_1470.html Cite as: [1867] UKHL 2_Paterson_1470 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 1470↓
(1867) 2 Paterson 1470
REPORTS OF SCOTCH APPEALS IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
No. 61
Subject_Marriage Contract — Clause of Conquest — Wife's Conquest — Succession —
In an antenuptial marriage contract between D. and Mrs. D., D. assigned a policy of insurance to trustees, etc., and Mrs. D. transferred to them certain bank-stock, also “all sums of money, goods, gear, and effects, and heritable and moveable estates which she may conquest or acquire during the marriage.”Her father died, and by his marriage contract she became entitled to a sum of £1500; and her share of his intestate succession was upwards of £17,000: these sums Mrs. D. succeeded to during the marriage.
Held (affirming judgment), That the word “conquest” in the above clause was used a popular sense, and included the above sums which Mrs. D. succeeded to, and therefore that her trustee was entitled to hold them under the trusts of the marriage contract. 1
_________________ Footnote _________________
1 See previous report 3 Macph. 609; 37 Sc. Jur. 299. S. C. L. R. 1 Sc. Ap. 136; 5 Macph. H. L. 75; 39 Sc. Jur. 434.
Page: 1471↓
This was an appeal from an interlocutor of the Second Division as to the construction of a marriage contract. Mrs. Mary Wilhelmina Nisbet or Diggens and her husband raised an action against the trustee of her marriage contract, concluding for declarator that a sum of £1500 and her share of her father's estate were vested in her notwithstanding her marriage contract.
The condescendence set forth, that Francis John Diggens, Commander in the Royal Navy, in 1860, married Miss Mary Wilhelmina Nisbet, eldest daughter of Ralph Compton Nisbet, Esq. of Mainhouse, in the county of Roxburgh, and previously the parties executed a marriage contract appointing William Robert Gordon, solicitor in Banff, and others, the trustees of the marriage. By such marriage contract, the intending husband assigned to the trustees a policy of insurance on his life with the Standard Insurance Company, dated in 1854, for a sum of £200, and entered into the usual covenant to pay the premium. This sum was settled on his intending wife and the child or children of the intended marriage. The husband also obliged himself and his heirs and executors to pay his widow £50 for mournings if she survived him; and he also assigned to her such household furniture, etc., as might belong to him at the time of his death. There were no other provisions in the contract by the husband in favour of the wife.
On the other hand, Miss Nisbet assigned to the marriage trustees some bank shares of the North of Scotland Banking Company, amounting to £250; and then followed this clause: “And the said Mary Wilhelmina Nisbet hereby further assigns, dispones, conveys, and makes over to the said trustees all sums of money, goods, gear, and effects, and heritable and moveable estates of every description, wheresoever situated, which she may conquest or acquire during the subsistence of the said intended marriage.” And she assigned all sums of money then standing to her credit in the banks.
The marriage took place, and on 2d November 1863 the lady's father died, leaving a considerable fortune. By her father's marriage contract he was bound to pay to the children of his marriage a sum of £3000; and as only two daughters survived, Mrs. Diggens was entitled to half that sum. Mr. Nisbet, as regards the rest of his estate, died intestate; and his estate of Mainhouse, in Roxburghshire, was of the value of £18,500, subject to a burden of £7500. He had also some house property in Banffshire, and personal estate in England and Scotland to the amount of £23,000.
The sole accepting trustee of Mrs. Diggens' marriage, the present respondent, claimed to hold all the sums which Mrs. Diggens thus succeeded to, and consequently, that such property would be subject to the trusts declared by such contract, which were in favour of the children. On the other hand, Mrs. Diggens and her husband claimed to have this money paid over to them absolutely free from the restrictions of their marriage settlement; and hence the husband and wife brought this action against their trustee to have it so declared.
Lord Ordinary (Ormidale), on construing the marriage contract, held, that the pursuers were entitled to succeed. On reclaiming petition, this judgment was unanimously reversed by the Second Division, who held, that the words had not been used in the technical sense, but in a popular sense, and comprehended everything which the wife might succeed to during the marriage; and, that this was clear from the fact, that it was the wife who entered into the obligation, which was an unusual thing, and from the relative circumstances of the parties—the husband having no property, and the wife herself having nothing but her expectations. The Court therefore assoilzied the defender from the conclusions of the action.
The pursuers appealed against the interlocutor of the Second Division.
The Attorney General (Rolt), Sir R. Palmer Q.C., and Anderson Q.C., for the appellants.— The Lord Ordinary was right, and the Second Division wrong, in the construction of this marriage contract. It is well settled, that the word “conquest” in such contracts includes only what one acquires by industry or other singular title, and excludes what comes by succession— Menz. Conv. 440; Erskine, iii. 8, 14; iii. 8, 43; Bank. i. 5, 12; Bell's Pr., § 1975; M. 3047— 3075. If, then, the word has a definite technical meaning, there is no reason why that meaning should not be given to it here. It is said, that it ought not to receive the same meaning here, because this is a clause of conquest on the part of the wife and not of the husband; but a wife may earn money as well as her husband, as an authoress, artist, actress, and so forth. Here the husband renounced his jus mariti, and therefore the wife's earnings would remain her own. If a husband acquires money jure mariti, this does not come within the term “conquest”— Mercer v. Mercer, 1 Fo. Dict. 197, M. 3054; Rae v. fraser, 23d Jan. 1810, F. C. The same meaning should be given to the word where the wife has by the contract separate estate, and is precisely in the same situation as to it as the husband is as to his own estate. It is also said, that the fact of there being a trust excludes the technical meaning of the word “conquest;” but this cannot change the character of the subject matter. At all events the sum of £1500 cannot be treated as conquest, for the father's marriage contract under which it was payable had already secured that sum to the wife before her marriage, and, therefore, it cannot be said to have been acquired during her marriage.
Giffard Q.C., and Young, for the respondent.—Though the word “conquest” may have a technical meaning in clauses on the husband's side, still it is an entire novelty for a wife to enter
Page: 1472↓
Cur. adv. vult.
Under the marriage contract of Mrs. Diggens' father and mother, the father, after binding himself, and his heirs and executors, to pay to his wife, in case she survived him, an annuity of £150 for securing such annuity, bound and obliged himself to settle and vest a heritable bond for £3000 in trustees, the interest to be paid to himself during his life, and after his death to be applied in payment of the widow's annuity, and the principal sum, after the death of both the parties, to go to the child or children of the marriage, but in such proportions, and at such times, as the father might direct by a writing under his hand, and failing of such writing, to be divided equally amongst the children of the marriage.
There were two daughters of the marriage. The father having survived his wife, by a deed of direction dated the 11th July 1855, appointed one half of the £3000 above mentioned to the appellant by her then name of Mary Wilhelmina Nisbet, reserving his own liferent; and the deed contained these words— “I dispense with the delivery hereof, and declare these presents to be good, valid, and effectual, although found lying by me or in the custody of any other person to whom I may intrust the same undelivered at my death.”
The father died intestate on the 2d November 1863, leaving heritable and moveable estates of considerable value, to which the appellant and her sister became entitled in equal moieties.
The questions upon the appeal are, whether the sum of £1500 appointed to the appellant by the deed of direction of the 11th July 1855, and moiety of her father's heritable and moveable estates, belong to the respondent as trustee under the marriage contract of the appellants, as having been conquested or acquired during the subsistence of the marriage.
In the construction of every instrument, whether will or deed, words must primâ facie be assumed to have been intended to be used in their ordinary sense, and if they have a technical meaning, that meaning must likewise prevail, unless it is apparent from the context, or from the whole purview of the instrument, that they require a different interpretation.
The word “conquest” is a word of technical signification, and according to Mr. Bell, in § 1974 of his Principles of the Law of Scotland, when used substantively in marriage contracts, comprehends whatever is acquired, whether heritable or moveable, during the marriage by industry, economy, purchase, or donation, but not what comes by succession, or legacy, or accession to a subject already acquired.
The ordinary provision of conquest inserted in marriage contracts, applies only to the husband's acquisitions during the marriage. Lord Cowan, in his judgment in this case, says, a provision made by a wife of her conquest during the marriage is unprecedented, and so far as any known style of contract of marriage can be relied on, or any reported decision on questions of the kind discloses, there is no instance on record of a wife providing in general terms, or specifically, conquest in its limited sense to her husband and children.
A wife (as was observed in argument) may acquire considerable sums during the marriage, by the exercise of her musical or literary talent, or by carrying on business; but, as the Lord Justice Clerk remarks, she cannot in any legitimate sense conquest or acquire anything, because whatever she acquires of moveable property passes to her husband, and if any heritable estate
Page: 1473↓
Of course, provision might be made respecting a wife's acquisitions during the marriage, under the term “conquest” in a marriage contract, if it was clear, that the word was meant to be used in the same technical sense as when applied to a husband's acquisitions. But the absence of any precedent of a deed in which a wife has made provision for her conquest, in the same sense in which a husband's conquest is provided for, raises a presumption, that when the technical word is found in a clause in a marriage contract, dealing with the wife's property, it is not intended to be used in its strict and technical sense.
The word in the present case is not used substantively, but as a verb, as to which Mr. Bell (Prin. § 1975) says: “The word ‘conquest’ is also sometimes used as a verb, ‘what we shall conquest or acquire,’ or its meaning is qualified by descriptive words, and the extent varies with the expression.” By this I understand, that the word “conquest,” when used as a verb, is more flexible than when used as a substantive. Being then at liberty to depart from the technical sense of the word, if there is a manifest intention, that it was not to be technically applied, the question arises, whether in the deed itself sufficient grounds are not to be found for the adoption of a different construction.
In an ordinary provision of conquest the husband is the absolute proprietor, during his life, of everything which comes under that denomination, and may dispose of it during his lifetime for onerous causes, but not gratuitously. Every acquisition made by the wife during the marriage belongs to him, unless his jus mariti is excluded. There is nothing in the smallest degree analogous to this in the marriage contract of the appellants. The whole of the wife's heritable and moveable estates of every description, which she may conquest or acquire, are assigned to trustees, and they are empowered, with the consent of the wife alone, to sell any of the heritable estates and convert them into money, both the parties binding themselves to execute all deeds necessary for vesting the heritable estates in the trustees. The husband is deprived of the power of touching the smallest portion of the property, and instead of the wife being the absolute proprietrix of it, as in the case of a husband with respect to his conquest, she is restricted to a command over a sum of £2000 for herself, or as a loan to her husband on security, and in case the husband survives, the trustees with his consent may advance to a child or children any sum not exceeding £2000.
Such a trust as this is entirely at variance with a provision of conquest. From the nature of the deed in its constitution of this trust, and from the character of its provisions, I am satisfied that the words “conquest and acquire” were not used in a strict technical sense, but were meant to comprehend everything which might fall to the possession of the wife during the marriage. This will include the £1500 acquired under the deed of direction of the 11th July 1855, as well as the moiety of the father's heritable and moveable estates. I therefore differ with the Lord Ordinary, and agree with the opinion of the Judges of the Second Division, and think their interlocutor ought to be affirmed.
Page: 1474↓
A provision of conquest seems to have been an ancient mode of making a settlement for the benefit of wife and children, sufficient probably in early times, but ill suited to the exigencies of the present day. It was founded, as I collect from the opinion of the Lord Justice Clerk, on the hypothesis, that the spouses were bound together in a sort of partnership to endure during the marriage, and then, at the death of the husband, the result of their gains during the marriage, whether from frugality, industry, or purchase, was to be ascertained. This was analogous to the profits of a commercial partnership, and the result was treated as the “conquest” on which the contract of the husband, in favour of his wife and children, attached.
But it is impossible to attribute to the word “conquest,” as used in this marriage contract, the same meaning as that which attaches to it in an ordinary provision of conquest by a husband. What is to constitute conquest, properly so called, cannot be ascertained till the death of the husband, but here, the assignment of what the wife shall conquest or acquire, operates immemediately on the accruing of her title to the property assigned. It is all to be held by trustees during the marriage on trusts irreconcilable with her retaining, or her husband retaining, any power or control over it. The argument, however, of the appellants was, that though the incident of conquest, properly so called, to which I have referred—I mean its leaving everything under the husband's control until his death,—might be inapplicable to the assignment contained in this settlement; yet it would be right to interpret the words “which she may conquest or acquire” as embracing only such things as constitute conquest properly so called. Now it is admitted on all hands, that a provision of conquest by a husband does not extend to or affect any heritable or moveable estate which comes to him during the marriage by succession or legacy, and therefore, reasoning by analogy, the appellants contend, that the words used in this antenuptial contract ought not to be taken as extending to the share of her father's heritable and moveable estate, to which she has succeeded on his death. I cannot agree to this argument. If no technical meaning is to be attributed to the words “conquest or acquire,” no one would hesitate to say, that a married daughter, when her father dies and leaves a large property which descends on her, acquires that property during marriage. She certainly acquires it at some time, and if she does not acquire it during the marriage, when does she acquire it?
No authority has been produced to shew, that any technical meaning has ever been attributed to these words, “conquest or acquire,” except in the case of a provision made by the husband, when, from the nature of the contract into which he is entering, the word “acquire” cannot have its ordinary meaning. Even if it were necessary to adduce arguments to shew, that the word “acquire” ought to have its ordinary meaning attributed to it, there are cogent arguments on the face of the deed leading to that conclusion. In the first place, the assignment here is by the intended wife, not by the husband, and it is highly improbable that a lady, one of two only daughters of a gentleman of fortune, should, on her marriage with an officer in the navy, think of entering into an engagement to settle what she should earn during the marriage by her own personal talents or exertion. Arguments were ingeniously put to shew, that she might during the marriage, as an authoress or an artist, earn large sums, to which she might intend her contract to refer. This seems to me highly improbable, and quite inadequate to justify the Court in giving to the words used a technical, instead of their ordinary, meaning. Besides which, as was truly said at the bar, all which a married woman might earn would from time to time, as it might be realized, become the property of the husband. But what seems to me to shew conclusively, that it is not to earnings or acquisitions in the nature of conquest technically interpreted, that the deed referred to, is the circumstance, that the property assigned is to go to the trustees, who are to deal with it during the marriage in the mode prescribed by the contract. This is inconsistent with conquest in its technical sense. It was admitted, that there is no authority for holding, that a provision of conquest had ever been made the subject of an assignment to trustees, and I am persuaded, that no such case does or can exist; such a trust would in fact he inconsistent with the nature of conquest. On these grounds, I think, that the decision of the Court below was right.
It was argued, however, that different principles may be applicable to the £1500 to which the wife was entitled under her parents' marriage contract, and the deed of direction executed by her father. The argument was, that though the precise amount to which she eventually became entitled was not ascertained till after the death of her father in 1863, yet she had an absolute indefeasible title to some part of the £3000 secured by the marriage settlement of her parents to their children, and so it was contended she could not be said in any sense to have acquired that sum during the marriage. But this is a very subtle refinement. She had not any part of the £3000 at the time of the marriage, and it is reasonable to understand her contract as extending to everything not then in her possession, but which should come by any means during the marriage. She makes over to the trustees a small sum of bank stock of which she was possessed at the time of the marriage, and the reasonable construction of the language used is, that she meant to deal with all, of which she should afterwards become possessed, in the
Page: 1475↓
Sir Roundell Palmer.— Will your Lordships permit me, as you have said nothing about expenses, to recall to your recollection the fact, that the Court below thought this a case in which no expenses should be given, and no expenses were given.
Interlocutors affirmed, and appeal dismissed with costs.
Solicitors: Appellants' Agents, A. Morison, S.S.C.; W. Robertson, Westminster.— Respondent's Agents, Morton, Whitehead, and Greig, W.S.; Martin and Leslie, Westminster.
