Ec-Product-Directive-Article

Allcard v Skinner

(1887) 36 ChD 145

Court of Appeal

In 1868 Miss Allcard was introduced by the Rev Nihill, her spiritual director and confessor, to Miss Skinner, who was the lady superior of a Protestant institution known as 'The Sisters of the Poor'which had been founded by Nihill and Skinner. Allcard joined the sisterhood and became a professed member of the sisterhood in 1871. By the rules of the sisterhood Allcard bound herself to observe the rules of poverty, chastity, and obedience. The rules further provided 'that the voice of thy Superior is the voice of God,' that 'no Sister [should] seek advice of any extern without the Superior's leave,' and that all individual property had to be given up and that if it were given up to the sisterhood it should not be required or reclaimed by the members on leaving the sisterhood. Shortly after joining the sisterhood in 1870 Allcard made a will leaving all her property to Skinner. Whilst she was a member of the sisterhood she gave Skinner £1050 plus stocks and shares worth £5,870. In 1879 Allcard left the sisterhood and immediately revoked her will but she did not reclaim any of her property until 1885 which at that date was worth £1671. Allcard brought an action for the return of her property claiming that she was induced to make over her property whilst acting under the direction and paramount influence of Skinner, and without any separate or independent advice.

The issue before the court was whether Allcard was under undue influence when she gave her property to Skinner.

Cotton LJ

Is the Plaintiff entitled to recall the stock now in question and still in hand? There is no decision in point with reference to a case like the present. For, although in the case of Whyte v Meade a deed of gift by a nun was set aside, there were in that case special circumstances which prevent it being treated as an authority in favour of the Plaintiff. The question is - Does the case fall within the principles laid...