Cook v Green
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 May 1814 |
| Date | 21 May 1814 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 822
Common Pleas Division
S. C. 1 Marsh. 234.
822 COOK v. ORTIEN 5 TAUNT. 599. fails, for the Plaintiffs and their deceased partners were all members of that office, and are themselves, at least, jointly interested in the annuity, and are therefore the very grantees, and not trustees for others. Admitting that if they are made trustees by a prior part of the deed, their subsequent covenant will not discharge them, yet the Defendant and Aclora are not made trustees by any prior part of the [593] deed, they are introduced only for the purpose of covenanting to pay the money. Their former interest is not varied by any act of theirs, but they still continue bound by the deed of 1788 to pay over the proceeds to Boynton as long as ho lives. In Johnson v. Taylor it was not ruled that a resulting trust for the grantor needs be stated, but only that, if it were expressed, it ought to be stated. With respect to the supposed necessity of stating the extent of the estate charged, it is necessary only to read the act, to see that the argument is without foundation. Cur. adv. vult. On this day Gibbs C. J. delivered the judgment of the Court. After recapitulating the pleadings, he thus proceeded. We all are of opinion that this judgment must be affirmed ou the same ground on which the Court of King's Bench proceeded, namely, that the memorial is defective, and has not pursued the act, nor done all that the act requires to be done therein. The Defendant and Aclom were originally trustees for Boynton : after this deed they became trustees for the Plaintiffs, for securing this annuity. The memorial states that the interest of Boynton was conveyed for securing this annuity : it states that the Plaintiffs were trustees for the society, but it does not state for whom the Defendant and Aclora were trustees. In that particular we think the memorial defective ; the act requires in terms that the memorial should state for whom any of the parties are trustees. The Defendant and Adorn were trustees for the annuitants, but the memorial does not state for whom they are trustees, or any purpose for which they are introduced into the deed. We therefore think the judgment must be Affirmed. [594] COOK v. GREEN. May 21, 1814. [S. C. 1 Marsh. 234.] If the Plaintiff in replevin pleads three several issues, two of which are found for Defendant, and one for the Plaintiff with the general costs, the Defendant is entitled to deduct thereout...
To continue reading
Request your trial