John Catron

Name: Jenkins v. Pye — Concurrence
Author: John Catron

Summary

“Jenkins v. Pye — Concurrence”, is a work by John Catron. It explores elements such as conveyance, heir and George Jenkins.

Quotes from Jenkins v. Pye — Concurrence (John Catron)

John Catron, Jenkins v. Pye — Concurrence

“ It is but justice, however, to say, that I do not suppose either of those highly respectable authors intended to question the doctrine in a case like the present; where the estate in reversion descended upon an infant heir, encumbered with a life interest, and the expectancy was given to the tenant for life, within eighteen months after the heir came of age. That such purchase is a constructive fraud, and the purchaser, if a stranger, compelled to account, and give up his bargain, if found to be advantageous; has not, for a century, been an open question. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Catron, Jenkins v. Pye — Concurrence

“ The elements of the decree below were, 1. That the grantor, Eleanor Jenkins, was a young heir, and a woman, when she made the conveyance; that it was of her whole estate, without consideration, and to a parent of large wealth.
2. That she was an heir of an estate in reversion, which descended to her in tender infancy; and in regard to the possession and enjoyment of which she must be deemed and treated, in a court of chancery, as an expectant heir.
3. She conveyed to the adult tenant for life, who was her father and natural guardian, with whom she resided, and on whom she was dependent. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Catron, Jenkins v. Pye — Concurrence

“ De Faria, 17 Vesey, 23, it will be laid down, that 'this is the case of a person who, in this court, is considered as an expectant heir;' and 'that it is incumbent upon those who have dealt with an expectant heir, relative to his reversionary interest, to make good the bargain: that is, to be able to show that a full and adequate consideration was paid. In all such cases, the issue is upon the adequacy of price; no proof of fraud is necessary ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Catron, Jenkins v. Pye — Concurrence

“ When the facts proved are in accordance with the presumption, and establish that the same condition continued to the date when suit was brought, time has not been strictly regarded in England; and chancery has frequently proceeded to afford relief, disregarding the length of time, upon evidence of a continuing oppression and poverty, or concealment. This cause has certainly in it circumstances to raise difficulties. Eleanor Pye married within two years, and died within five after the conveyance was made ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Catron, Jenkins v. Pye — Concurrence

“ George Jenkins died intestate, as regarded his lands; whether by accident or design, matters nothing to the infant children who are plaintiffs. The answer avers, that the complainants by the intestacy are entitled to two-elevenths by their grandfather's estate; whereas were they to obtain the lands conveyed by the deed of 1813, and come in as joint heirs of the residue, they would take more than one-half. What advances were made by their father to the two children of George Jenkins, who are defendants, does not appear ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Catron, Jenkins v. Pye — Concurrence

“ The general doctrine, that full force will be given to presumptions founded on time, and that stale demands will not be enforced to compel parties to account, nor to disturb contracts or possessions, is established on a very firm footing as the doctrine of this Court, in Ricard v. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Catron, Jenkins v. Pye — Concurrence

“ Two thousand dollars in bank stock was a poor advance for a man of large wealth, having only three children, on the intermarriage of one of them; and we will take it that Eleanor was not intended to be turned off destitute.
The facts thus introduced from the commissioner's report, to control the effect of the first decree, (could they be heard for such purpose,) are therefore of no value, and cannot help the conveyance. How then did the father stand?
The jealousy with which courts of chancery watch contracts made by parents with children, is laid down with terseness and much accuracy by Mr. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Catron, Jenkins v. Pye — Concurrence

“ Jeffries, 2 Vern. 27, and reversed, and that of Lord Nottingham confirmed. So in Bemey v. Pitt, (the report of which is found in 2 Vern. 14; 1 P. W. 311; Newland Con. 347,) Lord Nottingham denied relief ”

John Catron

Summary

Quotes from Jenkins v. Pye — Concurrence (John Catron)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature