Hore v. Becher. *HORE v. BECHER. Husband and wife.-Reversionary interest.—Release. 1842 28th January. [*465] A single woman being entitled to an annuity secured by bond, married. Her husband executed a release of the annuity, and died, leaving his wife surviving. Held that, as he could release the security, he could release the annuity, so as to bind his wife. Mistake.-Release. A. executed a bond to B. and C., conditioned for payment of an annuity of 100% to D., for life, and assigned an annuity of 1201. for the life of one M., and a policy of insurance for 7001. on M.'s life, to B. and C., upon certain trusts for further securing the annuity of 100%. M. died, and A. died shortly afterwards, having, as was then believed, received the 7001. and applied it to his own use. Shortly afterwards, D., in consideration of 500%, released A.'s personal representative and B. and C. from the annuity of 100% and the securities for it. Some years afterwards it was discovered that A. had placed the 700%. in a bank, in the names of B. and C., where it still remained. Held, that the release, having been executed under a mistake, was inoperative, and that the 7007. remained impressed with the trusts for securing the annuity of 100%. ROBERT BECHER executed a bond, dated the 4th of May, 1813, to A. Fraser and John Becher, in the penalty of 2,000l., conditioned for securing an annuity of 100l. a year, to Mary Ann Dickenson, spinster, during her life: and, by a deed of even date with the bond, he assigned an annuity of 1201, which had been granted to him for the life of M. D., and also a policy of insurance for 7007. on M. D.'s life, to the obligees in the bond, upon certain trusts for further securing the due payment of the annuity of 100% a year. In April, 1814, Mary Ann Dickenson married John Turton. In 1819, Robert Becher, the obligor in the bond, died intestate; and his brother, Richard Becher, took out administration to him. After Robert Becher's death, the annuity of 1007. became in arrear; and Mr. and Mrs. Turton threatened to commence proceedings at law and in equity against Richard Becher, as the per Hore v. Becher. sonal representative of Robert, and against Fraser and [*466] J. Becher, as the trustees for securing the annuity, *in order to recover the arrears and enforce the future payment of the annuity. The parties, however, afterwards came to a compromise; in pursuance of which, Mr. and Mrs. Turton executed a deed, dated the 24th of August, 1819, and thereby, in consideration of 500l. paid to them by J. Becher, released Fraser, J. Becher, and Richard Becher as the administrator of Robert, from all claims and demands in respect of the annuity of 1007. or the securities for the same. Fraser survived John Becher, and died in 1839. The plaintiff was his executor. Mr. Turton also died; and, after his death, his widow married Samuel Wood. The bill was filed against Richard Becher as the personal representative of Robert, and against Mr. and Mrs. Wood: and, on the cause coming on to be heard as a short cause, one ques tion was whether it was competent, to Mr. Turton, to release his wife's annuity, except during the coverture. Mr. G. L. Russell and Mr. Hore, appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Stuart and Mr. J. H. Palmer, for Mr. and Mrs. Wood, said that all the payments of the annuity after Mr. Turton's death, were reversionary payments; and that a husband could not deal with the reversionary interest of his wife so as to bind her if she survived him; Purdew v. Jackson, (a) Honner v. Morton,(b) and Stiffe v. Everitt(c): that, if a husband could not assign his wife's reversionary interest so as to bind her if she survived [*467] him, he could not release it; for there was no differ ence, in principle, between a release and an assignment, as the power to extinguish could not exist without the power to transfer: and that, in Thompson v. Butler, (d) it was expressly de (a) 1 Russ. 1. (c) 1 Myl. & Cr. 37. Hore v. Becher. cided that if a married woman had an annuity for life, a release by her husband did not bind her if she survived. Mr. Bethell and Mr. Hislop Clarke, for Richard Becher, said that the cases cited related to assignments, by the husband, of the wife's reversionary interest; and, therefore, they did not apply to the present case; for, here, the question was, not as to the effect of an assignment, but as to the effect of a release by the husband: that a distinction had been always made between a release and an assignment; and that no point was better settled than that an interest, though it could not be assigned, might be released. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR:-If a man gives a bond or a promissory note to secure an annuity to a single woman, and she afterwards marries, her husband may release the bond or note; and, if he releases the security, there is an end to the annuity. In the case in Moore's Rep. it does not appear how the annuity was secured. If it was secured on land, it is perfectly plain that the husband could not release it without the concurrence of his wife in order to extinguish the annuity, she must have joined with him in levying a fine of the land. The object of the suit was to have the rights and interests of the defendants to and in certain Exchequer bills, which *had been purchased with proceeds of the policy on M. [*468] D.'s life, ascertained and declared by the court. The release of the 24th of August, 1819, recited (as the parties then believed to be the fact,) that, on M. D.'s death, (which took place in 1816,) Robert Becher received the money secured by the policy, from the insurance office, and converted it to his own use; and that he some time afterwards went to India, and died on his voyage home. In 1841, however, the plaintiff acci dentally discovered that the sum, due on the policy, had been Hore v. Bechor. paid into Hammersley's bank, to the account of Fraser and J. Becher, the obligees in the bond. Mr. Stuart and Mr. J. H. Palmer said that Mr. and Mrs. Turton executed the release under the erroneous impression, created by the recital in the deed, that the money received under the policy was gone; and that it was evident that they would not have executed the release, if they had known that the money was safely deposited in Hammersley's bank; and, consequently, the release was inoperative, so far as the fruits of the policy were concerned. Mr. Bethell and Mr. Hislop Clarke said that the question arose between co-defendants; and, as no bill had been filed to set aside the release, the court must consider it to be a valid deed, and decide, as to the rights of the parties, accordingly. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR:-This case must be considered with reference to the recital, in the release, that Robert Becher, after the death of M. D., received and converted to his own. [*469] use, *the sum of 7007. secured by the policy, which was actually paid to him by the insurance office, without any knowledge of the assignment of the 4th of May, 1813. It now turns out that that was an error in fact: and, therefore, the deed of August, 1819, though it purports to be a release of the 7007, cannot be considered as operating on that sum. It is apparent, on the face of that deed, that the parties would not have taken the course which they adopted, if they had known that the 7007. was deposited in Hammersley's bank, in the names of the trus tees of the assignment of May, 1813. The consequence is that the release was inoperative, and that the sum of 700%. still remains impressed with the trusts declared, by the assignment, for securing the annuity of 100% a year. Declare that, under the circumstances of mistake, the release dated the 24th of August, 1819, is totally inoperative, and that the principal sum of 7007., and the sum of 2691. 4s. 1d., being the Jones v. Pugh. interest thereof, together with the Exchequer bills in which those sums have been invested, are now subject to the trusts of the original deed of the 4th of May, 1813. Solicitor.-Privileged communications.-Mortgagor and Mortgagee. Discovery.-Defendant. 1842: 10th Feb. A solicitor invested his client's money on a mortgage, and, by the client's desire, took the mortgage in his own name, without any trust being declared by the deed. In a suit by a judgment creditor of the mortgagor, to redeem, against the solicitor and the mortgagor, (who was out of the jurisdiction,) held, that the solicitor was privileged from disclosing the name of his client, and also the particulars of other mortgages of the property, which had been taken, by other clients of the solicitor, in their own names. Held, also, that the case was an exception to the rule that a defendant who submits to answer, must answer fully. THE bill was filed, by a judgment creditor of the defendant Pugh, (who was out of the jurisdiction,) to redeem a mortgage made, in October, 1834, by Pugh to the other defendant Roy, who was a member of the firm of Roy & Co., solicitors. It alleged that the mortgage of 1834 was made, to Roy, as a trustee, and that there were other mortgages on the property; and it sought a discovery of the names of the persons for whom Roy was a trustee, and of the names of the parties to and all the particulars of the other mortgages; and it required Roy to set forth a list of the deeds and other documents in his power, relating to the matters stated and charged. Roy put in an answer to the bill, in which he admitted the matters alleged, but declined to give the discovery sought, or to set forth a list of the deeds, &c., on the ground that he could not do so without committing a breach of professional confidence and duty; inasmuch as the clients of his firm were in the habit of |