Gillespie v Alexander
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1826 |
| Date | 01 January 1826 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 38 E.R. 525
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Rule not applicable where estate not administered by Court, Davies v. Nicolson, 1858, 2 De G. & J. 693. See Gillespie v. Alexander, [1904] A. C. 6.
gillespie v. alexander. November 29, 1826 ; February 7, April, 1827. [Rule not applicable where estate not administered by Court, Davies v. Nicolson, 1858, 2 De G. & J. 693. See Gillespie v. Alexander, [1904] A. C. 6.] U In a suit for the administration of a testator's assets, after the decree on further directions had sanctioned payments made by the executor in discharge of legacies, and had directed the fund in court to be apportioned among the other legatees, a creditor obtained permission to prove his debt ; the Master subsequently re ported a debt to be due to him ; but, in the mean time, the fund had been appor tioned, and part of it had been paid over, while the remainder had been carried to the account of particular legatees : Held, that the creditor was entitled to receive out of the funds of the legatees so remaining in court, not the whole of the debt, but only a part of it, bearing the same proportion to the whole, as the legacies given to those legatees bore to the whole amount of the legacies given . by the will. 'f* -': --*-3i-, In this suit, which was instituted for the administration of General Gillespie's estate, the original decree, made on the 15th of November 1820, directed, among other things, the usual accounts of his assets, and of his debts and legacies. On the '23d of March 1823, the Master made his report ; in which he certified, that several creditors had come in before him and proved their debts, amounting in the whole to 269, 19s. 'Id. By an order, made on the 15th of April 1823, directions were given for paying the debts reported due ; and they were accordingly paid. The decree on further directions, made on the 12th of January 1825, after ascertaining the rights of the parties, providing for the payment of the costs, and reciting that the creditors of the testator had been paid their respective debts set forth in the schedule to the. Master's report, ordered, that the residue of the fund in Court, and also the bank annuities which should be purchased in pursuance of the directions therein contained, should be apportioned [131] among the legatees and the 526 GILLESWE V. ALEXANDER 3 BUSS. 132. annuitants, except such of them whose legacies might appeal1 to have been paid; and such apportionments, when appropriated in the manner therein directed, were to be considered as in discharge of the several legacies, so far as the value of such apportionments should extend. There was also a direction, that the executors should be allowed the sums which they had paid in discharge of legacies. In November 1825, Alexander Lean, claiming to be a creditor of General Gillespie, petitioned to be at liberty to go in and prove his debt; and that so much of a sum of 14,177, 16s. 9d. three per cent, bank annuities, then standing in the name of the accountant-general, to the credit of the cause, as might be sufficient to raise the sum which should be reported due to him, might be sold for payment of his demand. On the 29th of November 1825, an order was made, that he should be at liberty to go in and prove such debt, he paying the costs of the petition and of the proceedings before the Master. On the 26th of July 1826, the Master reported that 1636, Is. 5d, was due to the petitioner from the estate of General Gillespie. In the mean time, about December 1825, the fund in Coxirt had been apportioned by the Master among the annuitant and the unsatisfied legatees ; and part of it was paid out in discharge of some of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leahy v De Moleyns
...& J. 566. Dilkes v. BroadmeadENR 2 Giff. 113. Dix v. BurfordENR 19 Beav. 409. Forsyth v. BristoweENR 8 Ex. 716. Gillespie v. AlexanderENR 3 Russ. 130. Gregory v. Gregory 1 Coop. 201. Greig v. SomervilleENR 1 Russ. & My. 338. Henderson-Roe v. HitchinsELR 42 Ch. D. 304. Homan v. Andrews 1 Ir.......
-
Bedford v Bedford
...estate of a testator. After the decree had been made the sole Plaintiff died. (1) Lashley v. Hogg, 11 Ves. 602 ; G-illespie v. Alexander, 3 Russ. 130. 928 HALE V. BUSHILL 35 BEAV. 343. Mr. C. Browne now asked for an order to revive under the 15 & 16 Viet. c. 86, s. 52. He referred to Dendy ......
-
Noble v Samuel Brett and Others
...legatee, still he has no right, as against a purchaser, from him. He referred to Kinderhy v. Jervii (22 Beav. 1); Gillespie v. Alexander (3 Russ. 130); Williams on Executors (pp. 1216, 1308); Taylor v. Hawkins (8 Ves. 209); March v. Russell (3 Myl. & Cr. 31); Cole v. Myles (10 Hare, 179); C......
-
Sir Moses Montefiore-Appellant; Peter Browne, - Respondent
...case, notwithstanding the previous final decree; and this is sanctioned b/ the decision of Lord Eldon in Gil- lespie v. Alexander (3 Russell, 130; see also Noble v. Brett, 24 Beav. 499). I am satisfied, under the circumstances of this case, that the fund may be looked upon as being still in......