Doe on The Demise of Raikes and Others v Anderson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1816 |
| Date | 01 January 1816 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 431
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Same day DOE ON THE DEMISE OF RAIKES AND OTHERS V ANDERSON (The premises intended to be conveyed by a deed of mortgage are described as the defendant s undivided moiety, &c , the deed afterwards professes to convey all the defendant's estate, kc in the premises. This conveys the moiety only, to which the defendant was entitled in his own right, and not one-third part of the same premises in which he was interested as a co-trustee with the lessors of the plaintiff.) Part of the premises sought to be recovered consisted of two houses which the defendant Alexander Anderson and his brother John Auder-[156]-son had purchased, and which had been conveyed to them as tenants in common in fee. John Anderson devised his moiety to Raikes, Wilson, and the defendant, as trustees for certain purposes specified in his will. The defendant, after the testator's death, being considerably indebted to his estate, executed a deed of mortgage to the other trustees. This deed in the description of the premises intended to be conveyed, specified the (a) See the case of Newmarch and Another v Clay and Othets, 14 East, 239 , Hawkskaw v Raichnqs, L Str 24 ; Goddard v Cox, Str 1194. Where A owed a debt aa executrix and then con-[155]-tracted a further debt on her own account, and marned B. who contracted a debt with the same creditor, and then made several payments On an action against B alone, the question arose how these payments were to be applied in the absence of any express direction by B , aud it was held that B. being equally liable for the debt of his wife before coverture, and for his own debt daring the coverture, the plaintiff might apply the money in discharge of the wife's debt, but that since the demand against A as executrix, depended on the question of assets and on the manner of administering them, the plaintiff could not apply any part of the receipts to that demand See also the case of Bloss v. Cutting, cited Str. 1195 ; Buller'sN. P 174; Meggottv. Mills, i Lord Ray. 286, Anon. Cro Ehz. 68; Bois v. Cranfield, Style, 239 ; Comb 463 , 16 Vm Ab. M , Hall v Wood & Ux 14 East, 243, in the note , Dowe v Holdsworth, Peake's N P C. 64 ; RatnmersUy v. Knowlys, 2 Esp. R. 666. In the case of Meggot v Mills above cited, Lord Holt expressed an opinion that if A. being a trader becomes indebted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reynolds v Reynolds
...Drew v. Lord NorburyUNK 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 171. Strickland v. Maxwell 2 Cr. & Mee. 539. Thorpe v. Thorpe Lord Ray. 235. Doe v. AndersonENR 1 Stark. 155. Doe d. Meyrick v. Meyrick 2 Tyr. 178. Fausset v. CarpenterENR 5 Bli. N. S. 75; S. C. 2 Dow. & C1. N. S. 232. Mosely v. MotteuxENR 10 M. & W. 5......