Barton v Jayne
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 June 1834 |
| Date | 26 June 1834 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 58 E.R. 746
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Insolvent. Debtor. Demurrer. Jurisdiction.
[24] barton . jayne. June 26, 1834. Insolvent. Debtor. Demurrer. Jurisdiction. A bill by an insolvent to set aside an assignment by his assignee of his interest under his father's will, stating a special case of collusion between the assignee and the executors, is not demurrable. The Plaintiff was one of the children and residuary legatees of Eichard Barton, deceased, and the Defendants were N. Jayne and B. Tapley, the executors and trustees of E. Barton's will, Ann Barton, the only other surviving child and residuary legatee of R. Barton, and W. Sims, who had been chosen the assignee of the Plaintiff's estate under the Insolvent Debtors Act in the place of the original assignee who had died. The bill after charging Jayne and Tapley with having done various acts in violation of their duty as executors and trustees, alleged that the Plaintiffs debts under his insolvency amounted to between 300 and 400 only: that his share of his late father's estate, if recovered, would be sufficient to pay the whole of such debts and to leave a very considerable surplus for the Plaintiff; but Sims, acting in collusion with the other Defendants, declined to take any proceedings for enforcing an account and payment of such share; that if (as was pretended) [25] Sims had executed any deeds whereby the Plaintiffs interest in the matters in question in the suit had been assigned or released to the other Defendants, such deeds were fraudulent and void as against the Plaintiff: that about August 1833 the Plaintiff made application to Jayne and Tapley for an account of his father's estate, and divers communications took place between them, and Jayne offered to give the Plaintiff 100 for his interest in such estate, which the Plaintiff declined and threatened to commence proceedings in equity against Jayne and Tapley, unless proper accounts were rendered to him: that they,, being well aware of the improper and irregular manner in which they had acted in regard to the testator's estate, were very desirous to prevent the institution of any such proceedings, and therefore they formed a plan for procuring an assignment and' release of the Plaintiff's interest from an assignee under his insolvency, and with that view Jayne applied to Sims (who was a creditor of the Plaintiff for 14) to consent to become the Plaintiff's assignee, representing that Jayne had about...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrison v Ancketell
...(18) 26 Ch. D. 700. (19) 14 App. Cas. 318. (20) 6 D. M. & G. 596. (1) 16 L. R. Ir. 181. (1) 16 L. R. Ir. 181. (2) 1 Russ. & Myl. 638. (3) 7 Sim. 24. (4) 8 Sim. (1) 2 Ph. 649. (1) 2 H. L. Cas. 388. (1) 2 Ph. 651. (2) 1 Russ. & Myl. 638. (1) 2 H. L. Cas. 388. (1) 2 H. L. Cas. 388. (2) 6 D. M.......
-
Major v Aukland
...the estate (Borell v. Damn (2 Hare, 440)) or colluded with the debtors to the estate : Lautour v. Holcombe (8 Sim. 76), Sarion v. Jayne (7 Sim. 24). The allegation that the assignee had declined to sue for the legacy due to the insolvent was supported by the apparent fact that fourteen year......
-
Stones v Cooke
...decided on demurrer; but it does not appear that the .assent of the executors was alleged in the bill. V.-C. in.-24* 746 BARTON V. JAYNE 7 SIM. 24. without satisfying the demand. If Courts of Equity will enforce articles of separation, which are mere private agreements, a fortiori they will......
-
Maguire v O'Reilly
...& War. 147; S. C. 4 Ir. Eq. Rep. 362. Neate v. Duke of MarlboroughENR 3 My. & Cr. 407. Balfe v. Lord 2 Dru. & War. 480. Barton v. JayneENR 7 Sim. 24. Yewens v. RobinsonENR 11 Sim. 105. Halford v. GillowENR 13 Sim. 44. CASES IN EQUITY. 335 1846. cam. MAGUIRE v. O'REILLY. Jan. 26. THE plainti......