ABSTRACT
Held-by the Court of Appeal reversing the decision of Malins, Y. C., that the plaintiff was not entitled to her application-that it was quite clear that the defendant had stipulated before marryimg the plaintiff that the lease should be assigned to him, and that there wa..'1 no ground whatever for saying that any undue influence or undue pressure had been exercised, but that even assuming that there had been, and that the deed was in consequence set aside, the lease would still be the property of the husband, there having been no contract on his part to settle the lease on the plaintiff, and that with regard to the other property which the defendant had agreed should be the separate property of the plaintiff, this the defendant must undertake not to dispose of except to his wife (Monk v. Monk.)
Note-lt seems curious that the husband should have insisted upon the lease being assigned to hirn, since it would have become bis property in auy case upon bis marriage with the plaintiff, it being personal property not settled or agreed to be settled to her separate use. In any case the plaintifI could hardly expect to get out of a bargain which appeared distinctly to have been made as one of the conaiderations for the marriage.
