The Sun.
London, England, 1827-08-15 00:00:00

BANKRUPT

Ilia was an appeal from a decision of the Com-
missioners of Bankruptcy, who refused to admit the
proof of a claim made by Draycot, on behalf of his
wife, against the bankrupt's estate.
Mr. PEMBERTON said, the case arose out of a deed
executed in September, 1825. The deed, after re-
citing the marriage of Draycot with the bankrupt's
daughter, went on to provide, that Draycot should
settle an annuity of 501. on hie wife, in case she sur-
vived him ; that in the event orher being obliged
to live separate from him during his lifetime, on ac-
count of his misconduct, be was to pay her a like
annuity of the same amount, that he was in no case
to see or molest her, during their separation, as
long as Archer, her father, indemnified the hus-
band from all debt► or expences which the wife
might incur; and in consideration of these under-
takings on the part of the husband, Archer
covenanted to pay Mrs. Draycot during her lifetime
and for her sole use, an annuity of fifty pounds. Be-
fore any payment was made under the deed,
Archer became a bankrupt, and upon the petitioner's
going before the Commissioners to have the annuity
proved as against the bankrupt's estate, they refused
to admit the claim, on the grounds that no con-
sideration had been given for the atinnitity.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR.—They rejected your
claim because they thought the contract was against
the rides of public policy, inasmuch as it was made
in contemplation of the separation of husband and
wife.
Mr. PEMBERTON submitted that they acted upon
a mistaken conception of the law, as the Court
would find that the deed contained abundant consi-
deration, independently of the covenant, which was
impeachable on the grounds of public policy. There
was the covenant on the part of the husband to
settle an annuity on his wife in the event of her sur-
viving him. This, the learned gentleman contended,
would, in itself, be a sufficient consideration.
Mr. MONTAGUE sai,d this was the most impor-
tant question ever submitted to a Court of Justice.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR.—I think I remember• at
least one hundred as important.
Mr. MONTAGUE.—His Honour's memory might
be more accurate than his, but Lord Eldon, in speak-
ing of the well known case of Lord and Lady St.
John, - said it was the most important to the public
interests that could be submitted to a Court of Jus-
tice, independently of its effect on the contract of
marriage. It has been held (said his Lordship) as
a rule of law, that marriage is not dissoluble even
by a sentence of the law, but tth, dissolution must be
effected by the Legislature; and this was held upon
the principle, that parties should not think that they
were entering into'fluctnating contracts. His Lord-
ship. also declared, that any deeds made in contem-
plation of separation were void, inasmuch as parties
were not justified in looking forward to such an
event, but should, on the contrary, have the deter-
mination, upon entering into thq married state, to
improve their tempers, so far as to render a separation
unnecessary. In another case that came before Lord E-
ldon, where the husband, the wife, and a third party exe-
cuted a deed, providing that if the wife should separate
from her husband and take her child to live with her,
the husband was to pay to the Third party an an-
nuity for the benefit of the wife, his Lordship
there decided that the deed was void, because it
gave the wife the option of living separately. The
learned gentleman contended that the other clauses
were introduced into the present deed for the mere
purpose of giving a colour to a transaction in itself
fraudulent. Archer was, at the time of its execu-
tion, on the eve of bankruptcy, and the object was
to defeat his creditors.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that if
the Commissioners decided rightly, they were right, for
a!wrong reason. His Honour did not think that the
deed was impeachable because there was a contract
in it which was supposed to be against tile good
policy of marriage ; but, independently of that ques-
tion, there was another difficulty, namely, whether
the contract was not purely voluntary. The deed
was not made in contemplation of the marriage of
his daughter, for that had already taken place; and
the question, therefore, arose upon the claim of the
petitioner, although a good legal claim ought not to

be postponed to those of the bona fide creditors of
the bankrupt, •on the ground that Archer had re-
ceived no consideration for it. His Honour wished
that the gentlemen on both sides would look into
the authorities on the subject, and mention the case
again to-morrow.

SPORTING-(RECEIVED THIS DAY).

HUNTINGDON TIACES.—TuEsnAY, Ana. 14.
Join CALVERT, Esq., M.P., and .I.AmEs STUART, Esq
M.P., Stewards.

TAIr. Rown, Clerk of the Course.
Gold Cup, value 100 sovs., by subscribers of 10 sovs. each;
the surplus (if any) to be paid to the winner, for al
ages ; the winner to he sold for SOO sore. if demanded.
Four miles.