Skip to main content

Williams v Hensman; The principle case concerning the severance of a joint tenancy.

 


Wikipedia

Williams v Hensman

Williams v Hensman (1861) is an English trusts law case.

Williams v Hensman
Bleak house (1895) (14586117747).jpg
CourtCourt of Chancery
Citation(s)(1861) 1 J&H 546
Case history
Subsequent action(s)none
Case opinions
Held: A joint-tenancy may be severed in three ways...
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingPage Wood, Vice-Chancellor
Keywords
Co-ownership

Its principles of co-owned interests are today more relevant to land, whether from a trust now held as joint tenants (the default form) or as tenants in common (which follows on from express words such as "in equal shares" or from severance); in law all co-owned land in England and Wales must be held in either form.

It sets out the three means of severance.

FactsEdit

Money was bequeathed to be invested in stock, and to pay an annuity to A, with the ‘principal[n 1] to go to her children at death.’ All eight children consented to money being invested in a mortgage fund. Three were minors. They could not end the trust until they all grew up under the rule in Saunders v Vautier. The trustee, with full agreement, advanced a sum to one of the children, and the other children covenanted: not to call upon the trustee to make up any deficiency (to them) in case the shares held for them ("the share") should fall short of the advance (made to the other child), and also to indemnify the trustee against all claim(s), damage and expenses by reason of the advance.

The question was whether the beneficiaries of the trust was still co-owned jointly tenancy.

JudgmentEdit

The Chancery Court held it was a joint tenancy. And the act of the five severed their interest from the other three. Page-Wood VC decided:.[1]

A joint-tenancy may be severed in three ways:

in the first place, an act of any one of the persons interested operating upon his own share may create a severance as to that share. The right of each joint-tenant is a right by survivorship only in the event of no severance having taken place of the share which is claimed under the jus accrescendi [law of accruing to the survivor, right of survivorship]. Each one is at liberty to dispose of his own interest in such manner as to sever it from the joint fund—losing, of course, at the same time, his own right of survivorship.

Secondly, a joint-tenancy may be severed by mutual agreement.

And, in the third place, there may be a severance by any course of dealing sufficient to intimate that the interests of all were mutually treated as constituting a tenancy in common. When the severance depends on an inference of this kind without any express act of severance, it will not suffice to rely on an intention, with respect to the particular share, declared only behind the backs of the other persons interested. You must find in this class of cases a course of dealing by which the shares of all the parties to the contest have been effected, as happened in the cases of Wilson v Bell and Jackson v Jackson.

Applied inEdit

Barton v Morris [1985] 1 WLR 1257; [1985] 2 All ER 1032, EWHC Ch D[2]

Considered inEdit

Harris v Goddard [1983] 1 WLR 1203; [1983] 3 All ER 242, EWCA[2]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Image

By FSJ 16/09/2025. The Housing and the Affordability issue: The architect said lets reason together as we build and design an energetic future with financially energized people; a discussion. By Mary Godwhen. Click here. BW Where would it go if I reverse engineer a "BAPE" shoe logo? Charles cares. He has vowed to have the most able and responsive Tiger economy in Europe and North America and the most safe and ably funded citizens in those regions; his citizens, his people. It is that we will be the economic winners; not losers; at the top and not the bottom...in front and not at the back. It would only take him a day to get it going. We can design anything. Certainly, anything we design demands and requires people with money for us to enjoy it; if it's a restaurant, an amusement park, a shopping centre or a town or city in general. The Bugatti sellers will have more sales and the Vauxhall owners will finally make full payment for the shopping and vacations; for their vehicles also. We do not enjoy suffering, lack or insufficiency. But maybe a vengeful bum might. Money is important. It has to be important. So, why are we incessantly brought to have this conversation about income support rather quite often when observing the economies west of Calais as run by; whom? Laissez Faire is not an economic policy but the policy of no policy in light of industrial mechanization of labor and the social problems it occasions when the families do not have enough money to buy their coal for heat, milk, bananas and vegetables. They would usually just take what they need; wherever they can take it. The economy is run by whom? The income support in Vermont, Minnesota and Massachusetts exceeds $70000.00 per year. This should be so for the whole, entire continent. But, some states and provinces, not all, are being run by income support benefit men touring boxes of undistributed emergency debit cards that they can now hand out to people in those camps. They seek public attention more than public efficacy. They have had enough time to solve the obvious. Money is the obvious issue but you wouldn't be waiting for an God fearing man to come and campaign on this issue when we know you can see the problem and solve it for us. We do not enjoy suffering, lack or insufficiency. But maybe a vengeful bum might. They are experimenting with money in terms of crypto or bit coin and its definition before they would agree to just HAVE MONEY. Money is the most important weapon in spite of all your Oppenheimer detonators that can't read help during peace time and for what when you would still need money?

Post a Comment