Cooper v Fynmore
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1827 |
| Date | 01 January 1827 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 38 E.R. 498
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
cooper v. fynmore.(i) By an indenture, bearing date the 18th of May 1804, and made and executed by and between Amelia Hartley of the first part, Charles Beimer of the second part, and William Fynmore and William Fisher of the third part; after reciting, that a marriage was intended to be had between Amelia Hartley and Charles Reimer, it was witnessed, that Fynmore and Fisher were to stand possessed of a sum of £800 3 per cent, consols, which had been transferred into their names, upon trust, to pay the interest and dividends, as they should become due, " into the proper hands of Amelia Hartley, during the joint [61] lives of her and Charles Reimer, her intended husband," for her separate use, and, after the decease of either of them, upon trust, to transfer the stock to the survivor of them, Amelia Hartley and Charles Reimer, his or her executors, administrators, and assigns. In and before the month of June 1805, Beimer was indebted to Joseph Cooper in the sum of £180, 8s., and, in the beginning of that month, Cooper lent to Reimer a further sum of £99, 12s. By an indenture, bearing date the 8th of June 1805, made and executed by and between Charles Reimer and Amelia his wife, of the one part, and Joseph Cooper of the other part, the £800 3 per cent, consols, standing in the name of Fynmore and Fisher, were granted, bargained, sold, assigned, and transferred unto Cooper, his executors, administrators, and assigns, as a security for the payment of the sum of £300 and interest, on the 8th of June 180G. By an indenture bearing date the 30th of October 1807, made and executed by and between Charles Reimer and Amelia his wife, of the one part, and Robert Ingram of the other part, reciting the deed of the 18th of May 1804, and that Reimer and his wife had contracted with Ingram to grant to him an annuity of £31, 14s. for the lives of Reimer and his wife, and the survivor of them, at the price of £150, it was witnessed, that Reimer, and Amelia his wife, did give, grant, bargain, sell, &c., unto Ingram, his executors, administrators, and assigns, during the lifu of Reimer and his wife, and the life of the survivor of them, an annuity of £31, 14s., to be charged and chargeable upon, and to be issuing and payable out of a certain sum of £2000, and also out of the interest, dividends, income, and produce, whether [62] annual or otherwise, of the said sum of £800 3 per cent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willes v Greenhill
...v. Rolk (1 Atk. 164 ; S. C. 1 Ves. sen. 348) ; Stevens v. Savage (1 Ves. jun. 154) ; Pwrdew v. Jackson (1 Russ. 1) ; Cooper v. Fynmore (3 Russ. 60) ; Smith v. Smith (2 Cr. & M. 231) ; Exparte Smtlton (1 De G. & J. 163) ; Timsm v. Ramsbottom (2 Kee. 35) ; Rice v. Rice, (2 Drew. 73) ; and Mem......
-
Thomas Foster, George Cleeve, and James Baikie, Esquires-Appellants; Sir Charles Cockerell, Baronet, - Respondent
...the part of the first incumbrancer as amounts to a fraud, Evans v. Bicknettfja Ves. 183), Jones v. Gibbons (9 Ves. 407), Cooper v. Fynmore (3 Russ. 60), or such as brings the other party into grievous difficulties.-[Lord Lyndhurst (Lord Chancellor): Does not the omission to give notice in s......
-
Timson v Ramsbottom
...It was a principle which Sir Thomas Plumer had himself declared to be inconsistent with the doctrine of this Court in Cooper v. Fynmare, (3 Russ. 60), where he said that mere neglect of notice was not sufficient to postpone a prior incumbrancer, and that in order to deprive him of his prior......
-
Wilmot v Pike
...v. Cooper without seeing that his opinion as to the mode of transfering such property (contrary to his opinion in Cooper v. Fynmore (3 Russ. 60)) was borrowed entirely from the decisions in bankruptcy, as to the acts which were necessary, [20] under the statute, to take a chose in action ou......