The Court of Appeal decided on Tuesday a curious case,
in the manner which will best recommend itself to the advocates of women's rights. A Mrs. Jackson had settled her property on her niece (and adopted daughter), the niece having married her nephew, —and on the survivor of them for life, but on condition that, if her niece died and her nephew married again after his wife's death, the income should pass to some one else. The case supposed happened ; her niece and adopted daughter died, and the nephew married again ; but Vice-Chancellor Hall ruled in the lower Court that the proviso was invalid, since provisions in restraint of marriage, though they might be held good in the case of a woman, could not be deemed valid in the case of a man. Lords Justices James, Mellish, and Baggallay, however, on Tuesday overruled the decision, pointing out that this was the first time the question had ever come up for decision, and deciding that there is no legal difference between such a provision for a woman and such a provision for a man. That certainly seems the com- mon-sense decision. Whatever the sentiment of the case may be, there can be no public policy requiring us to quash all provisions tending to deter men from remarrying, any more than there is in the case of women. As far as the policy is concerned, the ques- tion of remarriage is probably a matter of profound indifference, and one therefore on which testators' caprices, however they happen to fall, ought to be carried out.
Previous page
