Donovan v Fricker
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 1821 |
| Date | 31 July 1821 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 37 E.R. 813
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
JACOB, 166. DONOVAN V. FKICJKEI! 813 donovan t. fricker. Rolls. July 30, 31, 1821. A purchase being set aside for fraud, and the purchaser decreed to pay an occupation rent, receiving back his purchase-money with interest, there being a considerable excess of the rent above the interest, annual rests directed to be made in the accounts, until the excess of the rent should liquidate the principal. This was a bill by the assignees of PL Kennett under the insolvent act, against Daniel, Duff his assignee under a previous commission of bankrupt, and against (t. Fricker and J. Henderson, to set aside, an agreement for a lease, and an assignment from Duff to the latter. It appeared that Kennett was possessed of two leasehold houses, one in Bond Street, and the other in Albermarle Street; the former was demised by him to the defendants, Fricker and Henderson. After his bankruptcy, his assignee Duff, in June 1804, agreed to demise the other house to them for twenty-one years ; he afterwards in April L809, sold and assigned to them the bankrupt's interest in both houses. The bill cbarged inadequacy of consideration, and other circumstances affecting these transactions with fraud. The defendant Duff did riot appear. By the decree pronounced at the Rolls on the 19th of December 1814, it was declared that the agreement for a lease, and the assignment ought to be set aside ; the Master was directed to set an occupation rent upon the house in Albermarle Street, from, the commencement of the term to the time of making his report, with which [166] the defendants Fricker and Henderson were to be charged, and also with the rent due for the house in Bond Street under the former lease. They were to be allowed for lasting repairs, and substantial improvements, and were at their own expeuce to reinstate as a private liouse, one of the houses which they had converted into a shop. An account was to be taken of what was due to them for the sum of 1100 paid by them as the. consideration for the assignment, with interest at the rate of 5 per cent. ; and what should be found due from them was to be deducted from what should be, found due to them, and the difference to be paid by the plaintiffs ; if the defendants should appear to have been over-paid, they were to repay the excess to the plaintiffs. They were to re-assign the premises, and to pay the plaintiffs costs. (Reg. Lib. A. 1814, fo. 1743.)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cutler and Others v Southern and Others
...but it is only form, and therefore good if the plaintiff pleads over, or demurs generally. Cro. Eliz. 916, Bniban v. Bacon. Cro. Jac. 165, Alinyton v. Yearker. Ibid. 363, Codner v. Dolby. Ibid. 634, Horseman v. Obbins. 2 Eep. 1 b. 4 a. Manser's case. Sty. 16, Wroath v. Elseye. 3 Mod. 252, M......
-
John Scholefield v Joshua Ingham, Isaac Hemsworth, Isaac Whitaker, and David Linley
...after satisfaction of interest, to liquidation of capital, and make yearly rests (Jl^ebber v. Hunt, 1 Maddack, 13; Donovan v. Flicker, Jacob, 165, 168); yet that, to the best of his recollection, it was by no means of course in a decree for an account against a mortgagee in possession to in......
-
Kater v Roget
...trust-funds were vested in trustees upon trust for Mr. and Mrs. Kater for life, with remainder to their children (a) See Hill v. Kinoan, Jac. 165, Bierdermann v. Set/mow, 1 Beav. 594 : Lowry v Fulton, 9 Sim. 114. 902 kater v. roget 4Y&C.EX.19 as they or the survivor should appoint, and in d......
-
Neesom v Clarkson
...at the motion of the Plaintiff, upon the question of annual rests. In support of the application for annual rests Donovan v. Flicker (Jac. 165) was cited. Jan. 18, 1845. the vice-chancellor [Sir James Wigram] said that if the account was to be taken against the Defendants as mortgagees in [......
-
Preliminary Sections
...A.C. 378, 400 173 Dobson v. Jones (1844) (5 Man.& Gr.112), 134 E.R. 502. 46 Dockings v. Lord Penryn (1878) 4 A.C. 51. 53 Donovan v. Fricker 37 E R 813 62 Dykes & Ors. v. Thompson (1909) W N 104 256 Edo and Osakabov. Commissioner of Police (1962) 1 All N.L.R. 92. 83 Edu v. C.O.P., 14 W.A.C.A......