Davis, Executrix of William Griffiths, against Bryan, Gent., one, &
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1827 |
| Date | 01 January 1827 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 108 E.R. 591
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 9 D. & R. 726; 5 L. J. K. B. O. S. 237.
6B.&C.682. DAVIS-V. BRYAN 591 davis, Executrix of. William Griffiths, against bryan, gent., one, &c. 1827. Where A. purchased an annuity for his life, which was regularly paid up to the time of his death, but no memorial of the grant of annuity was enrolled : Held, that A.'s executrix could not, on that ground, insist that the contract was void, and recover back the consideration money paid for the annuity. [S. C. 9 D. & E. 726; 5 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 237.] Indebitatus assumpsit. The declaration contained counts for money had and received by the defendant to the use of the testator, for interest due from the defendant to the testator, upon an account stated with the testator, for money had and received by the defendant to plaintiff's use as executrix; and, lastly, a count upon an account stated between defendant and plaintiff as executrix, of monies due to her in that character. Plea, the general issue, the Statute of Limitations, and a set-off for money lent and advanced, and paid, laid out, and expended by the defendant for the testator's use. On these pleas issues were joined, and at the trial before Lord Tenterden C.J., at the Westminster sittings after Easter term 1826, a verdict was found for the plaintiff on the second issue, and for the plaintiff, also, on the first and third issues, with the damages laid in the declaration, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the following case :-The testator, Wil-[652]-liam Griffith, in the year 1814, and from that period until the time of his death, resided in and near Boss, in the county of Hereford. The defendant is an attorney, and during the same period resided at Monmouth, and acted as the attorney and agent of the testator. On the 25th day of November 1814, William Griffiths contracted and agreed to purchase of the defendant an annuity of 241., for the life of him (William Griffiths) for the price or sum of 3001., which was then paid by him to the defendant; and thereupon the following instrument was signed by the defendant to secure the annuity; this instrument was found amongst William Griffiths's papers, after his decease, and was produced by the plaintiff on the trial :- "Received this 25th day of November 1814, of Mr. William Griffiths, of Buck Castle, near Ross, in the county of Hereford, the sum of 3001., being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guinness Mahon & Company Ltd v Kensington and Chelsea Royal Borough Council
...to in the judgments: Chillingworth v EscheELR[1924] 1 Ch 97. Cotman v BroughamELR[1918] AC 514. Davis v BryanENR(1827) 6 B & C 651; 108 ER 591. Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour LtdELR[1943] AC 32. Goss v ChilcottELR[1996] AC 788. Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham London......
-
Marianne Turner v Browne
...to intimate his intention to avoid the grant: Scwrfield v. Gowland (6 East, 241); Waters v. Mansell (3 Taunt. 56); Davis v. Bryan (6 B. & C. 651, 9 D. & E. 726). [Cresswell, J. The grantee cannot say the consideration has failed, so long as he receives the annuity. Tindal, C. J. I think the......
-
Beere v Head and Others
...v. NicholasENR 1 Str. 664. Doe v. Routledge Cowp. 712. Wanleyn v. De Mattos 2 Ken. 226. Malins v. Freeman 6 Scott, 187. Davis v. BryanENR 6 B. & C. 651. Measter v. Gillespie 11 Ves. 628. Croosly v. ArkwrightENR 2 T. R. 608. Gye v. FeltonENR 4 Taun. 876. Doe v. ManningENR 9 East, 71. Doe d. ......