Anonymous (1795) 9 Mod 66
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 88 E.R. 319
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMOM PLEAS, AND EXCHEQUER.
[66] case 33. anonymous. If a Dutchman be possessed of real estate in Holland, and personal estate in England, and devise his real estate to A. and his personal to B. the personal estate shall be first applied to pay his debts in Holland, though real estate there is liable to debts. The testator, who lived in Holland, and who was seised of a real estate there, and of a considerable personal estate in England, devised all his real estate to the plaintiff, and all his personal estate to the defendant, whom he made executor, and died. But at the time of his death be owed some debts by specialties, and aome by simple contract in Holland, and had no assets there to satisfy those debts, other than by his real estate, which, by the custom and laws of Holland, is made liable to the payment of debts upon simple contract as well as upon specialties, if there are not personal assets to answer the same, especially debts upon simple contract for servants wages or for work done. Now the creditors in Holland sued the plaintiff there, to whom the real estate was devised, and had a sentence against it, by virtue whereof it was sold for the payment of their respective debts. Thereupon the plaintiff exhibited this bill against the defendant, who was executor, and to whom the personal estate was devised as aforesaid, that he (the plaintiff) might (b) See Askew v. The Poulterers Company, 2 Vezey, 89. Clavering v. Clavering, 2 Vezey, 233. (c) Bwfmd v. Lenthall, 2 Atk. 551. (d) See Duke on Charitable Uses, 132. (a) Baylis v. Attorney-General, 2 Atk. 239. Attorney-General v. Middleion, 2 Vezey, 327. 6 Com. Dig. " Uses " (N. 21). (b) Aylet v. Dodd, 2 Atk. 238. Burford v. Lenthall, 2 Atk. 550. Jones v. Coxeter, 2 Atk. 400. 320 MICHAELMAS TERM, 10 GEO. 1. IN CHANCERY MOD. 67. be re-iraburaed by the defendant for the loss he had sustained in not bringing the personal estate to Holland to discharge the debts there in aid of the real estate. Upon hearing this cause, the plaintiff produced an exemplification of the sentence in Holland, under the common seal of the States, in evidence, without any farther proof that such sentence was given there; for which reason, The counsel far the defendant objected against the reading it; and this upon the authority of the case of Swinnerton v. Goddard, in the House of Lords, where it was settled, that the exemplification of any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anonymous (1796) 1 Mod 266
...on oyer will not admit a copy, although the original is in the hands of the other party.-10 Co. 92. 1 Sid. 386. 1 Saund. 9. 8 Mod. 75, 322. 9 Mod. 66. 10 Mod. 8, 42, 74, 108, 126, 292, 507, 515. 12 Mod. 24. 394, 414, 494, 500, 579. 2 Vern. 471, 591, 603. Free, in Chan. 116. Abr. Eq. 228. 1 ......
-
The Earl of Winchelsea v Garetty
...estate was the primary fund for the payment of debts, and should come in aid of the real estate, and be charged in the first place. (Anon. 9 Mod. 66 ; Bmuaman v. Reeve, Pr. in Ch. 577.) In the Scottish law a very different principle prevails; for there, heritable bonds, are primarily payabl......
-
The Mayor, Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London v Brandon
...afterwards recognised by taking brokerage in respect * See Alves v. Bunbury, 4 Camp. 28 ; Henry v. Adey, 3 East, 221 ; Bull N. P. 229 ; 9 Mod. 66. 558 HARVEY V. MORGAN aiIAM.16. of such contracts, he did in fact employ a sub-broker, contrary to the terms of the condition. Lord Ellenborough.......