Coppin v Coppin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1725 |
| Date | 01 January 1725 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 24 E.R. 735
Chancery Division
Case 79.-coppin versus coppin. [1725.] A younger brother beyond sea having contracted to buy a real estate of his elder brother, makes his will charging his estate with great legacies, but the will is attested only by two witnesses ; afterwards the testator dies without issue, leaving his elder brother executor and heir : the heir may retain out of the assets the whole purchase-money, though entitled again to the land as heir. Francis Coppin, the younger brother of the defendant John Coppin, having been unsuccessful in the former part of his life and contracted several debts, and failed in the world, and compounded his debts at 10s. in the pound, by the assistance of his elder brother the defendant John Coppin at length got an interest in the East-India Company, who employed him as one of their supercargoes to Persia, where having gained a very considerable personal estate, he wrote to his elder brother to find out a purchase for him. Upon which the defendant his elder brother proposed to sell him an estate of his own in Emberton in Bucks for 4000, and the said Francis Coppin to enter upon the premises as at [292] Michaelmas 1718, which proposal by several subsequent letters was accepted by Francis Coppin. Afterwards Francis Coppin made his will, whereby he gave several considerable legacies, and then came the following words, viz. " whatsoever shall remain in money, " lands, and goods, I give the same to my brother John Coppin, who thereout is to pay " what I owe to my creditors at Aleppo, who have been so kind as to compound my " debts with me at 10s. in the pound, and they to be paid without interest." After which he made the said defendant John Coppin his executor and residuary legatee, but the will had but two witnesses, and was made beyond sea, in the said Francis Coppin's return from Persia. The purchase before agreed upon was in the life-time of the testator Francis executed, and the defendant John Coppin the vendor gave a receipt for the 4000 purchase-money upon the back of the purchase-deed; but he swore that at that time nor any time afterwards he received no part of the purchase-money other than such sum as appeared on the account set forth by him ; and this seemed admitted by the letter of the testator Francis Coppin, who died beyond sea in his return from Persia without wife or issue, and leaving the defendant John Coppin his elder brother and heir. And now three bills were brought; one by the legatees for the recovery of their legacies (of which the executor the defendant John had paid about a moiety), the said legatees suggesting, that this purchase was made by the defendant John Coppin for his brother, in which the defendant (as was objected) acted both as vendor and vendee, and the deeds of purchase [293] having continued in his hands to the time of the said testator's death, was a fraudulent purchase as against the legatees. The second bill was brought by the compounding creditors, upon a suggestion that their demands being originally debts, and what the testator thought in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chu et al. v. Chen et al., (2004) 197 B.C.A.C. 201 (CA)
...to. [Appendix]. Gibbons v. Baddall, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 682; 22 E.R. 573, refd to. [Appendix]. Coppin v. Coppin (1725), Sel. Cas. T. King 28; 25 E.R. 204, refd to. Pollexfen v. Moore (1745), 3 Atk. 272; 26 E.R. 959, refd to. [Appendix]. Harrison v. Southcote (1751), 2 Ves. Sen. 389; 28 E.R. 249,......
-
Philips v Philips
...substitution of the personal representatives so as to prevent a lapse by the death of the legatee. The cases cited were Coppin v. Coppin (2 P. Wms. 291), Williamson v. Naylor (3 Y. & Coll. 208), on the character of the disposition made by the will; and Gittings v. M'Dermott (2 Myl. & K. 69)......
-
Ellard v Cooper
...1 Jo. & Lat. 527. Kearnan v. Fitzsimon3 Ridg. P. C. 1, 16. Pollexfen v. MooreENR 3 Atk. 272. Coppin v. CoppinENR Sel. Cha. Ca. 28; S. C. 2 P. Wms. 291. 1 Reg. Lib. B. 1745, fol. 283. Lawrence v. BlakeENR 8 Cl. & Fin. 504, 536, 537. Prowse v. AbingdonENR 1 Atk. 482, 486. Marsh v. EvansENR 1 ......
-
Edmund Okeden, Plaintiff; (1) and Peter Walter, John Bond, William Okeden, Johngould and Mary his Wife, Conyers Place the Younger, Clerk, and Magdalen, his Wife, and William Okeden, an Infant, the Son of the Plaintiff, Defendants
...a gross sum to be raised, will necessarily imply that it should be raised at once, and this was settled in the case of Evelyn v. Evelyn, 2 P. Wms. 291; for it may be raised out of the rents and profits, and so'laid up till it amounts to that sum.The age of twenty-five in this will, is the t......