Blake v White
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 May 1835 |
| Date | 30 May 1835 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 160 E.R. 171
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER IN EQUITY
S. C. 4 L. J. Ex. Eq 48. Applied, Tucker v. Laing, 1856, 2 Kay & J. 745; Munster and Leinster Bank v. France, 1889, 24 L. R. Ir 82. See 4 Y. & C. Ex. 566.
blake v white May 30th, 1835 -Where a bond creditoi, by agreement with his debtor, takes interest on his debt by anticipation, a Court of equity will restrain an action on the bond, whether brought against the principal or the surety - Upon a motion to levive the common injunction, the Court will hear the defendant on the merits. [8. C. 4 L. J. Ex. Eq 48. Applied, Tucker v. Laing, 1856, 2 Kay & J. 745 ; MmUtr ami Leinsier Bank v. Fiance, 1889, 24 L. R Ir 82. See 4 Y. & C. Ex. 566.] The late Sir Francis Blake being indebted to one White in the sum of 43001, executed to him a bond for securing the repayment thereof, with interest, on the 4th of February, 1814, and in that bond the present Sir Francis Blake, the eldest son of the obligor, and the plaintiff his brother, were sureties. In June, 1818, Sir Francis Blake the father died, having by his will devised seveial considerable real estates to his eldest son, charged with the payment of his debts, and likewise appointed him executor There were also certain real estates which descended to Sir Francis Blake, the son, as heir at law to his father. In October, 1818, White agreed with the agent of Sir Francis Blake the son, that upon receiving the arrears of interest which were then due on the bond, and upon receiving the future payments half yearly on the 1st of January and the 1st of July in every year, he would give time to Sir Francis Blake as the heir at law of his father, for payment of the principal sum mentioned in the bond Accordingly the arrears of interest were paid, and the following memorandum was endorsed upon the bond, and duly signed:- "October 27th, 1818 The sum of 2961. 6s. 5d. is this day paid to me in full of interest on the within bond, due up to January 1st, 1819, and the subsequent payments to be made every six months, commencing the 1st day of July, 1819 " "(Witness) J. Car michael. (Signed) "james white." [421] The interest was regularly paid to Mr. White at the times stated in the agreement. In 1830 it was, with his consent, reduced from 51. to 41. 10s per cent. In 1832 White died. In 1833 his widow and executrix brought an action on the bond against the plaintiff, who thereupon filed his bill, stating that White had, upon the application of Sir Francis Blake, agreed to give him time for payment of the bond out of the real and personal assets of his father, and praying that it might be declared that the plaintiff, as surety in the bond, was released in equity from payment of the debt\ and that the defendant might be restrained fiom proceeding in the action, or commencing any other action against him. The plaintiff obtained the common injunction, which, however, was dissolved...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grahame v Grahame
...5 Eq. 595. Howell v. JonesENR 1 C. M. & R. 97. Rees v. Berrington 2 Ves. Jun. 540. Samuell v. HowarthENR 3 Mer. 272. White v. BlakeENR 1 Y. & C. Ex. 420. Petty v. CookeELR L. R. 6 Q. B. 790. Swire v. RedmanELR 1 Q. B. D. 541. Mills v. Alderbury GuardiansENR 3 Ex. 590. Bellairs v. EbsworthEN......
-
Tucker v Laing
...not have been any relief by way of injunction against such an action. This point was considered by Lord Lyndhurst in Blake v. White (1 Y. & C. Exch. 420), in which case he held that a bond creditor had given time to the debtor by taking six months' interest three months before it was due. T......