In Jorden v Money, Money borrowed £1,200 from Jorden’s brother for the purposes of an unsuccessful speculation. Subsequently, Jorden became her deceased brother’s executrix and was entitled to the benefit of a judgment debt entered in favour of the deceased brother. Money had given a bond to the brother as security for payment of the debt, but Jorden had on various occasions said that she did not intend to enforce the bond, believing that Money had been unfairly treated. These statements led Money to believe that the bond would not be enforced and in reliance on the belief that this was the case, he gave his prospective parents-in-law an assurance that he was free from the debt of £1,200. Money sought a declaration that Jorden had abandoned the bond. Such an order was granted at first instance and supported in the Court of Appeal. However, the House of Lords reversed these earlier decisions: Jorden v Money (1854) 5 HLC 185; (1854) 10 ER 868, HL, p 880

doi:10.4324/9781843141518-71

Chapter

No Image Available

Chapter

In Jorden v Money, Money borrowed £1,200 from Jorden’s brother for the purposes of an unsuccessful speculation. Subsequently, Jorden became her deceased brother’s executrix and was entitled to the benefit of a judgment debt entered in favour of the deceased brother. Money had given a bond to the brother as security for payment of the debt, but Jorden had on various occasions said that she did not intend to enforce the bond, believing that Money had been unfairly treated. These statements led Money to believe that the bond would not be enforced and in reliance on the belief that this was the case, he gave his prospective parents-in-law an assurance that he was free from the debt of £1,200. Money sought a declaration that Jorden had abandoned the bond. Such an order was granted at first instance and supported in the Court of Appeal. However, the House of Lords reversed these earlier decisions: Jorden v Money (1854) 5 HLC 185; (1854) 10 ER 868, HL, p 880

ABSTRACT

In Jorden v Money,74 Money borrowed £1,200 from Jorden’s brother for the purposes of an unsuccessful speculation. Subsequently, Jorden became her deceased brother’s executrix and was entitled to the benefit of a judgment debt entered in favour of the deceased brother. Money had given a bond to the brother as security for payment of the debt, but Jorden had on various occasions said that she did not intend to enforce the bond, believing that Money had been unfairly treated. These statements led Money to believe that the bond would not be enforced and in reliance on the belief that this was the case, he gave his prospective parents-in-law an assurance that he was free from the debt of £1,200. Money sought a declaration that Jorden had abandoned the bond. Such an order was granted at first instance and supported in the Court of Appeal. However, the House of Lords reversed these earlier decisions:

Jorden v Money (1854) 5 HLC 185; (1854) 10 ER 868, HL, p 880 Lord Cranworth LC: There are two grounds upon which it is said that the parties have lost their right to enforce the bond. The one is that, previously to William Money’s marriage, Mrs Jorden, then Miss Marnell, represented that the bond had been abandoned, that she had given up her right upon it, and upon the faith of that representation the marriage was contracted. And then it is said that upon a principle well known in the law, founded upon good faith and equity, a principle equally of law and of equity, if a person makes any false representation to another, and that other acts upon that false representation, the person who has made it shall not afterwards be allowed to set up that what he said was false, and to assert the real truth in place of the falsehood which has so misled the other. That is a principle of universal application and has been particularly applied to cases where representations have been made as to the state of the property of persons about to contract marriage, and where, upon the faith of such representations, marriage has been contracted. There, the person who has made the false representations has, in a great many cases, been held bound to make his representations good.