2
Editorial Committee of the Cambridge Law Journal Bills of Sale. Attempted Gift of Furniture by Husband to Wife While Co-Habiting with Her before Marriage. Validity of Gift. Bills of Sale Act, 1878. Hislop v. Hislop [1950] W.N. 124 (C.A.) Author(s): C. N. W. Source: The Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1 (1951), p. 96 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of Editorial Committee of the Cambridge Law Journal Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4503997 . Accessed: 10/06/2014 00:35 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . Cambridge University Press and Editorial Committee of the Cambridge Law Journal are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Cambridge Law Journal. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 62.122.73.128 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 00:35:10 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Bills of Sale. Attempted Gift of Furniture by Husband to Wife While Co-Habiting with Her before Marriage. Validity of Gift. Bills of Sale Act, 1878. Hislop v. Hislop [1950] W.N. 124

  • Upload
    c-n-w

  • View
    214

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Bills of Sale. Attempted Gift of Furniture by Husband to Wife While Co-Habiting with Her before Marriage. Validity of Gift. Bills of Sale Act, 1878. Hislop v. Hislop [1950] W.N. 124

Editorial Committee of the Cambridge Law Journal

Bills of Sale. Attempted Gift of Furniture by Husband to Wife While Co-Habiting with Herbefore Marriage. Validity of Gift. Bills of Sale Act, 1878. Hislop v. Hislop [1950] W.N. 124(C.A.)Author(s): C. N. W.Source: The Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1 (1951), p. 96Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of Editorial Committee of the Cambridge LawJournalStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4503997 .

Accessed: 10/06/2014 00:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press and Editorial Committee of the Cambridge Law Journal are collaborating withJSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Cambridge Law Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.128 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 00:35:10 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 2: Bills of Sale. Attempted Gift of Furniture by Husband to Wife While Co-Habiting with Her before Marriage. Validity of Gift. Bills of Sale Act, 1878. Hislop v. Hislop [1950] W.N. 124

The Cambridge Lazu Journal 96

BILLS OF BALE-ANEMPTED GIB OF BURNITURE 8Y HU8BAND m WEEVOL. 11 WHIZ CO-BITZG WITH HER BEFORE MARRIhGE-VALIDI OF

GIN BLLS OF SALE AU, 1878.

Ilislop v lfislop {1950] WN 124 tCA)

Is 1943 a husband's first wife left him, and another woman came to live with }}imv In 1944 the husband, by a written document, made a gift of furniture to this *voman. The first wvife diverced her husband in 1947 and he married the second woman The husband feII into arrears with payments of maintenance to his first wife and she sought to levy execution on the furniture in his house. The second wife cIaimed that it belonged to her.

The Court of Appeal, afflrming the decision of the county court, held that the second wife was unable to defeat the claim of the first wife. Evershed M.R. declared that the document of 1944 was IlOt effective to pass title unless the second wife could show that she had possession. If she had possession, the decisions in Bamsay ar A>argrett [l894] 2 Q.B. 18, and Fre71ch v. Gething 11922] l K.13. 236, would apply and the husband would no longer be the possessor or apparent possessor within the meaning of section 8 of, the Bills of Sale Act. In order to establish her title, since the transactioIl is a gift otherwise than by deed, the second wife must show (i) an intention to give and (ii) a delivery of possession; and in order to satisfy the second requirement she cannot rely on the doctrine that ' possession follows title ', for this invollres 8 c¢cular argument.

In refusing to apply Ra1nsay v Margrett, Evershed M.R. does not follow the dictum of Goddard L.J. in Youngs v. Youngs [1940]

l K.B. 760, when he says ' I think the cases show that where a man is living openly with a mistressv }nstead of a wife, the doctrine of Ramsay s. Margrett would &pply to transactions between them, whereby one sells to the otller the contents of t}e hotlse in which they are lisring '. His refusal is presumably based on the distinc- tion that by a sale title passes and possession follows it in cases of doubt; but in a ft otherwise than by deed, possessson must be first proved before title can be establlshed.

The tfaster of the Ilolls would express no opinion as to whether the marriage in 1947 would cure any defect in the second wife's title which existed between 1944 and 1947.

C. N. W.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.128 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 00:35:10 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions