Clarke v Royle
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 February 1830 |
| Date | 01 February 1830 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 1085
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Buckland v. Pocknell, 1843, 13 Sim. 412; In re Albert Life Assurance Company, 1870, L. R, 11 Eq. 179.
Vendor and Purchaser. Lien.
[499] clarke v. royle. Feb. 1, 1830.(1) [See Buckland v. Pocknell, 1843, 13 Sim. 412; In re Albert Life Assurance Company, 1870, L. R. 11 Eq. 179.] Vendyr and Purchaser. Lien. A. conveys an estate to B., in consideration of B. entering into the covenants contained in the deed for paying an annuity to A., and 3000 to certain persona in the event of his, B.'s, marrying. Held, that the covenants did not create a lien on the estate. By indentures of lease and release, of the 21st and 22d of January 1818, the release reciting that George Hankinson had agreed to convey to Charles Hankinson the hereditaments therein described, in consideration of Charles Hankinson entering into the covenants therein contained, for payment to George Hankinson, during his life, of an annuity of 60, and also in consideration of Charles Hankinson entering into the other covenant thereinafter contained : It was witnessed that, in pursuance of the said agreement, and in consideration of the covenants of the said Charles Hankinson, to the effect in the said indenture contained, George Hankinson conveyed the hereditaments to Charles Hankinson in fee. And it was further witnessed that, in pursuance of the agreement on the part of Charles Hankinson for entering into such covenants as aforesaid, he, the said Charles Hankinson, did, for himself, his heirs, executors and administrators, covenant with George Hankinson, his heirs and assigns, that he the said Charles Hankinson, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, would pay, to George Hankinson, an annuity of 60 for his life, the first payment to be made on the 25th of March then next; and Charles Hankinson, for himself, his heirs, executors and administrators, further covenanted with George Hankinson, his heirs and assigns that, in case Charles [500] Hankinson should happen to marry, he, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns would, within 12 calendar months afterwards, pay, in such proportions and in such manner as George Hankinson should think proper, the sum of 3000 unto James Haukinson, Sam. Hankinson, Aaron Hankinson, and the children of Mary Islam, and certain other persons. Under these deeds Charles Hankinson entered into possession of the estates conveyed to him, and regularly paid the annuity of 60...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reidy v The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland
...his mother and sister, except from the profits of the lands conveyed to him.” 91 . The court noted a decision from 1830 in Clarke v Royle 3 Sim. 499, observing: “… it was held that an agreement to convey lands in consideration of a covenant to pay an annuity showed that the consideration on......
-
Gibson v Goldsmid
...the Plaintiff, contended that there was no lien on the shares for the performance of the Plaintiffs covenant. They cited Clarke v. Boyle (3 Sim. 499). Mr. K. Palmer and Mr. Waley, for the Defendant, argued that a Plaintiff was not entitled to the assistance of a Court of Equity, without him......
-
Frail v Ellis
...no lien; Mackreth v. Symmons (15 Ves. 329); Winter v. Lord Ansom, (1 Sim. 16 BEA.V. 3M. FRAIL, V. ELLIS 815 & St. 445) j Clarke v. Royle (3 Sim. 499); White v. Waktfield (7 Sim. 401); Buckland v. Pocknell (13 Sim. 406); Parrott v. Sweetland (3 Myl. & K. 655). Secondly. Ellis cannot be affec......
- Wossidlo v Catt