In another case, A delivered 400s. to B to the use of C, a woman,
to be delivered to her on the day of her marriage. Before this
day, A countermanded it, and called home the money. It was held in
the Chancery Court that C could not recover because "there is no
consideration why she should have it".
In a case concerning a deed, A sold land to B for 400s., with
confidence, that it would be to the use of A. This bargain "hath a
consideration in itself ... and such a consideration is an
indenture of bargain and sale". It was held that the transaction
was not examinable except for fraud and that A was therefore
estopped.
A court reporter at the King's Bench formulated two principles on
consideration of the case of Wilkes against Leuson as: "The heir
is estopped from falsifying the consideration acknowledged in the
deed of feoffment of his ancestor. Where a tenant in capite made a
feoffment without consideration, but falsely alleged one in the
deed on an office finding his dying seised, the master of the
wards cannot remove the feoffees on examining into the
consideration, and retain the land until &c. and though the heir
tended, still if he do not prosecute his livery, the Queen must
admit the feoffees to their traverse, and to have the farm, &c."
The court reporter summarized this case as follows: Wilkes, who
was merchant of the staple, who died in February last past, made a
feoffment in the August before his death to one Leuson, a knight,
and his brother, and another, of the manor of Hodnel in the county
of Warwick; and the deed,(seen) for seven thousand pounds
[140,000s.
Pages:
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684