Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1475

estate. A collateral satisfaction may bar dower in equity, though not at common law. It was an agreement entered into with the consent and attestation of her guardian, and greatly for her advancement: her portion did not exceed £2000, the annuity stipulated was £600 per ann. she wanted scarce three months of 21; and though an infant at the time of the agreement, she had been for some years capable of contracting that marriage, to which this provision was incident and conditional. Her own lands of inheritance could not be bound during her minority, but the question in this cause related only to a right accruing to her on the marriage, out of the real estate of her husband, which stood liable to make good the jointure; and the marriage, which could not be rescinded, was in fact had upon the faith of the agreement to bar that right. But the argument was stronger, if possible, as to the personal than the real estate of the husband; for even if an infant could not be precluded, either in law or equity, from electing dower after the death of her husband out of the lands, it must be admitted, that the husband could, by will or otherwise, have given his personal estate away at his pleasure; and that her right in that respect was contingent, and arose as much [500] from the husband's intestacy as her marriage. Probably Sir Thomas Drury omitted to make a will, relying upon the validity of this instrument; and as the respondent had barred herself, by accepting of such a compensation, from claiming any part of his real or personal estate beyond her annuity, he know that the law would give the whole to his children as effectually as a will, and thereby correspond with his own intention.

On the other side it was contended (F. Norton, T. Sewell), that before the statute 27 Hen. VIII. c. 10, no jointure made on a woman, though of the age of 21 years, was binding or conclusive on her; hut she might waive such jointure, and claim title to a third part of the real estate which her husband was seised of or entitled to in fee, or in fee-tail, at the time of her marriage, and at any time during the coverture: but since that act, a jointure made upon a woman of full age, previous to her marriage, is conclusive upon her; in case such jointure be made of lands and tenements to take effect in possession or profit, presently after the decease of her husband, and be for the term of her own life, or a greater estate, or otherwise she has it in her election to take the jointure or dower; and so likewise, if the jointure is made after marriage. That it was not to be conceived to have been the intent of this act, that a jointure made before inarriage on a woman under age, should be binding and conclusive on her as the law was then, and has ever since continued to be clear and undoubted, that no conveyance or acceptance of any real estate whether by or under a fine, recovery, or other deed, could or now can bind an infant, either male or female; and if the legislature had intended that an infant female should be bound by such a jointure made upon her before marriage, care would have been taken that so remarkable an alteration of the known law of the land should be clearly so expressed; especially as it must be agreed, that this act is not binding on the husband, an infant making such jointure, but is absolutely void, and when he comes of age he may totally disavow the same; and there seems to be as much reason to suppose, that the makers of that act intended if any infants were to be bound at all, that both males and females should be equally so; and the legislature would probably have made some provision, that jointures made by or upon infants, should have been executed with such solemnities, and under such guards and cautions, as might have effectually prevented any fraud or imposition, or been otherwise injurious to infants executing the same. That if the doctrine of a female's being in all events bound by that statute, though an infant of the age perhaps of twelve years, should once clearly be established, it might give occasion to the practice of great frauds, and be productive of the greatest mischiefs and inconveniences; for in such a case, a man of a great real estate might engage an infant of only twelve years old to marry him, and by his settling any small part of his real estate on her by way of jointure, might bar her of dower out of his estate; at the same time that he, in right of such marriage, acquired an absolute [501] property in all her personal estate. That if an infant, upon the construction of the act 27 Hen. VIII. was intended to be bound by a jointure of lands, though of ever so little value, made upon her previous to the marriage; yet in the present case, there was no jointure of lands made upon the respondent. For Sir Thomas Drury, in consideration of her present and future contingent fortune, only covenanted that his heirs, executors, or administrators, in case the repondent should survive him, should pay to her, during her life, the yearly sum of £600, which in law could not be considered within the intent of the act, as it was neither a grant of lands,