The facts of the case appear to be that by the indenture of the 6th November, 1844, between the late Mr. John Hingston, of South Brent, of the one part, and the defendant, Mr. William Follett Hingston, a brother of Mr. John Hingston, of the other part, certain lands which in January of the same in the same year had been conveyed to Mr. Wm. Follett Hingston, as a trustee for sale for securing £2,500 advanced by way of loan by Mr. John Hingston, with interest, and other property which in 1828 had been assigned to Mr. William Follett Hingston upon trust for sale for securng to John Hingston sums amounting to £500, and certain freehold and leasehold premises and a policy of insurance for the sum of £499 19s, which had been assigned to the defendant William Follett Hingston upon trust for sale, for securing to Mr. John Hingston the sum of £1,200 and interest, and also certain debts secured by promissary notes of a clergyman of £100 and £150, and certain other debts of £50, £20, £15, and £100, secured by promissary notes, and the advantage of a contract for the purchase of a moiety of a freehold estate called Wotton, which Mr. John Hingston had contracted to purchase at the price of £1,029, and on which he had paid a deposit of £325, and the residue or balance of the said purchase money, and a sum of £800 then invested in the National and Provincial Bank at Totnes, in the name of Mr. John Hingston, and the household furniture, and all other the goods and effects of Mr. John Hingston, were conveyed and assured by Mr. John Hingston to Mr. William Follett Hingston, upon trust, to permit Mr. John Hingston to enjoy the property for his life, and subject thereto upon certain trusts for divers persons, and amongst others to pay a sum of £40 to the plaintiff, Mrs. Parnell, as one of the children of Mr. John Hingston's late sister, and, subject to the various trusts, the whole of the property was to be for the defendant, William Follett Hingston, to receive payment of the mortgage and other debts, and a covenant for quiet enjoyment, free from incumbrances. The deed of settlement contained no power of revocation; but it appeared that both Mr. John Hingston and Mr. William Follett Hingston considered that the deed was revocable. No notice of the deed was given to the debtors, and Mr. John Hingston continued to act in reference to the property just as he had before done. The deed was in 1850 handed to Mr. John Hingston; he then knew that it was not expressed to be revocable, and subsequently appeared to acquiesce in it. In 1852, however, Mr. John Hingston quarrelled with his brother, Mr. William Follett Hingston, and then, treating the deed as a nullity, he made his will. That will was dated 22nd of July, 1852, and he thereby gave all his freeheld estates called Woodhouse (purchased by him subsequent to the execution of the indenture of settlement, and paid for out of the mortgage and other moneys assigned to the defendant, William Follett Hingston), the dwelling house and premises in which he then resided, and other freehold property (included in the settlement), and part of Wottons (also included in the settlement), and all other his real and personal property, unto his nephews, the defendants Peter Owen Hingston and Henry Hingston, upon certain trusts differing almost entirely from the trusts of the settlement, and in particular making no provision for Mr William Follett Hingston.
Mr Bacon and Mr Collins for the plaintiff; Mr Walker and Mr Karslake were for Mr William Follett Hingston; and Mr C T Swanston, jun., was for Mr Parnell, the husband of the plaintiff.
Mr Malins and Mr Shapter were for Mr Peter Owen Hingston and Mr Henry Hingston.
The argument occupied a large portion of Saturday, yesterday, and to-day. The question how far a voluntary settlement is good as against the settlor was fully discussed and a great number of cases were cited.
His Honour reserved his judgement.