Crespigny against Wittenoom and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 June 1792 |
| Date | 22 June 1792 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 100 E.R. 1304
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
5 T. R. 639. 4 East, 197. 1 Taunt. 356.
ckespigny against wittenoom and another. Friday, June 22nd, 1792. If an IX..B.yaa.annuity be granted in consideration of the grantee's giving up his business to the grantor, it need not be registered under the 17 Geo. 3, c. 26. [5 T. R. 639. 4 East, 197. 1 Taunt. 356.] This was an action of covenant on articles of agreement, between the plaintiff of the first part, the defendant Wittenoom of the second, and the defendant Creapigny the Younger of the third part; dated in June, 1788. By those articles (which recited certain articles of copartnership) dated in August, 1786, between the plaintiff and the defendant Wittenoom; by which it was agreed, that the business of the copartnership (as proctors) should be carried on in the name of Wittenoom only, until the defendant Crespigny the Younger, should be admitted a proctor; after which the same should be carried on in the names of the two defendants, it being intended, and thereby agreed, that Crespigny the Younger should become a partner in equal degree with Wittenoom ; and which also recited, that Crespigny the Younger had been lately admitted a proctor; and that the plaintiff was desirous to quit and give up the business upon the defendants' paying the plaintiff the clear annual sum of 4001. it was covenanted and agreed, that in consideration of the [791] plaintiff's giving up the business to the defendants, they would pay him the clear annual sum of 4001. during his life, by quarterly payments, and also the further sum of 371. 10s. every three months during the joint lives of the plaintiff and Mary Green, widow of J. Green, who was a late partner with the plaintiff. The declaration, after stating the above, assigned a breach in non-payment. The defendants pleaded that the articles of agreement were made and executed after the passing of the statute 17 Geo. 3, c. 26 : that no memorial of those articles was within twenty days of the execution thereof inrolled in the Court of Chancery, as that Act requires; and that therefore the articles were null and void. To this plea there was a general demurrer, and joinder. Chambre for the demurrer. This case comes within the exception in the last clause of the Annuity Act, which provides against the extension of the Act to any "voluntary annuity granted without regard to pecuniary consideration." This indeed...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
- Ungku Sulaiman Abd Majid and Another v Director of Lands and Mines State of Johor and Another
- Malaysia Borneo Finance Corporation (M) Bhd v Malayan Produce Company Sdn Bhd
-
Attorney General v Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover
...referred to other statements minimising the importance of the preamble. For example, Buller, J. in ( Crespigny v. Wittenoom and Another 4 T.R. 790): "I agree that the preamble cannot control the enacting part of a statute, which is expressed in clear and unambiguous terms. But if any doubt......
-
Davies and Others v Kennedy and Others
...v. GathercoleENR 6 De G. M. & G. 421. Stradling v. Morgan Plowd. 204. Salkeld v. JohnstonENR 1 Hare, 196. Crespigny v. WittenoomENR 4 T. R. 790. Beavan v. The Earl of OxfordENR 6 De G. M. & G. 492. Shaw v. NealeENR 6 H. L. C. 581. Maples v. Hartley 3 Ell. & Ell. 610; S. C. 30 L. J. N. S. Q.......