Attorney General v Lloyd and Others

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date31 July 1747
Date31 July 1747
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 1117

HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY

The Attorney General
and
Lloyd and Others

Not followed, Thomas v. Howell, 1874, L. R. 18 Eq. 198.

[547] Case 200.-head versus head, May 20,1747. S. C. 1 Ves. 17; ante, 295, 511.-The deposition of a wife of a prochein amy cannot be read, as the husband is liable to costs. The bill was brought for the arrears and growing payment of an annuity of four hundred pounds a-year from the defendant Sir Francis Head, pursuant to an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant for that purpose, and to establish the agreement for a separate maintenance. Mr. Attorney General, for the plaintiff, cited the case of Oxenden versus Oxenden, 2 Vern. 493, and Seeling versus Crawley, ib. 386, and Angier versus Angier, Prec. in Chan. 496 ; Gfilb. Eq. Rep. 152. The defendant's counsel objected to the reading the deposition of Jane Genew, the wife of John Genew, as her husband is the prochein amy, and liable to costs. Lord Chancellor allowed the objection. The counsel for the plaintiff read next Sir Francis Head's letter to Sir William Boyce, Lady Head's father, being an agreement to pay Lady Head four hundred pounds a-year, dated August 25, 1740, which was as follows : Dear Sir William. " I shall always with pleasure remember my dear Quinette's many good qualities, " and be far from imputing her misfortunes as faults, but as it will be much easier for " me not to be a constant witness to what we can neither of us help, / am willing to " send her £100 and no more, between this and Christmas next, and to continue her " such quarterly payments, when it shall best suit my convenience, so long as we shall " continue separate, with this one proviso, that if you should think at any time my " pretty Gabrielle should want any kind of instructions, she may be sent to me, who " will always receive and instruct her as my child, according to my parental duty; and " have nothing further to add but my prayers that we may all enjoy quiet here, and " everlasting quiet hereafter, and am, Dear Sir William, Your most dutiful son, &c. francis head." [548] The plaintiff by her bill seeks to establish this as an agreement for her separate maintenance, and to secure the payment of four hundred pounds a-year for her life. Mr. Solicitor General of the same side: By a subsequent letter, dated the 22d of September 1741, to Lady Head, Sir Francis says, " upon sending a receipt you may " have your money on demand." What is your...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Mercer v O'Reilly
    • Ireland
    • Court of Common Pleas (Ireland)
    • May 30, 1862
    ...W. 437. Holmes v. WilsonENR 10 Ad. & El. 503. Gilman v. ShuterENR 2 Lev. 227. Ashburner v. BradshawENR 2 Atk. 36. Attorney-Gen. v. LloydENR 3 Atk. 551. Moore v. PhillipsENR 7 M. & W. 536. Chappell v. PurdayENR 12 M. & W. 303. Perry v. SkinnerENR 2 M. & W. 471. Moon v. Durden 4 Ex. R. 221. M......
  • Attorney General v Lloyd
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • August 1, 1747
    ...before the mortmain (9 Geo. 2, c. 36) act good, although the testator died'after it. (Vide 1 Ves. sen. 178,186, 225; Ambl. 451, 550.)-S. C. 3 Atk. 551. John Millington, seised of a considerable real and personal estate, made a will in 1734, and gave his real and personal estate to be laid o......
  • PHILIP CHARLES NEWTON, Plaintiff; PHILIP JOCELYN NEWTON, HENRY NEWTON, ARTHUR FITZMAURICE and BEAUCHAMP FREDERICK BAGENAL, Defendants; THOMASINE JANE ROBERTS, Intervenient. v
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal in Chancery (Ireland)
    • June 29, 1861
    ...v. TupperENR 1 K. & J. 665. Brooke v. Kent 1 Not. Cas. 100. Fitzgerald v. SterlingUNK 6 Ir. Ch. Rep. 210. The Attorney-General v. LloydENR 3 Atk. 551. In Goods of Chapman 1 Rob. 1. Walpole v. Cholmondeley 7 T. Rep. 138. In Goods of Brown 1 Swa. & Tris. 32. Thompson v. Hepenstal 1 Rob. 783. ......
  • Doe on the demise of Elizabeth Evans against Henry Evans
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the Queen's Bench
    • May 28, 1839
    ...suum esse mortuum, alterum instituit hseredem; filio domi redeunte, hujus institutionis vis est nulla"(i). Attorney General v. Lloyd (3 Atk. 551), turned on a codicil made under an error respecting the illegality of a former devise; and the error was not considered sufficient to vitiate the......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT