Grant v Grant
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1830 |
| Date | 01 January 1830 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 1025
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Bond.
[340] grant . grant. JW . 8, 9, 11, March 20, 1830. Bvnd. Where an obligor has, by vexatious proceedings, delayed the obligee from recovering on his bond, a Court of Equity will decree payment of the full amount of principal and interest, although it exceeds the penalty of the bond. Sir Alexander Grant, of Dalvey, in Scotland, Bart., the great-uncle of the Plaintiff, Sir Alexander Cray Grant, being seised as heir of entail of the estate of Dalvey, and being seised in fee of certain plantations and estates in Jamaica, made his will, dated the 20th of April 1772, and thereby gave two sums of £3000 to each of his nephews, Peter Grant and James Grant, and a sum of £2000 to his nephew Charles Grant, the Defendant; and he directed that the legacies he had so given to his nephews should not be or be held as a release or discharge of any debt they might owe to him at his death, but that each of them should be accountable for and pay such sums of money as they should respectively owe to him; and he directed the legacies to be paid, at the expiration of three years from his decease, with interest at five per cent, per annum, to commence from the end of one year after his decease ; and he charged the legacies upon all his real and personal estates, except his real estate in Scotland ; and he appointed his wife, Lady Elizabeth Grant, the Eight Hou. James Montgomery, his brother, Ludovick Grant, and John Spottiswoode, and Peter Grant, his nephew, executors of bis will. And he devised all his real estates (except his estate in Scotland) and the residue of his personal estate to his executors, subject V.-C. ii.-33 1026 GKANT V. GRANT 3 SIM. SO. to his debts and legacies, in trust for the heir to the estate at Dalvey and his other estates in Scotland for his life, with remainder to the next heir of entail of those estates, his heirs and assigns. He afterwards made [341] a codicil, dated in July 1772, by which he directed that the legacies should not be paid till seven years after bis decease. The testator died on the 2d of August 1772, leaving his brother, Ludovick, who became Sir Ludovick Grant, his heir at law and heir of entail of the estates in Scotland. Upon the death of Sir Alexander Grant, the testator, the trustees and executors prevailed upon Alexander Grant, who was the eldest son of Sir Ludovick, and the father of the Plaintiff, to go to Jamaica, and to act as their agent in the cultivation and management of the testator's estates in that island. James Grant was indebted to the testator, at his decease, in £684, 6s. 3d., which, being deducted from J. Grant's legacy of £3000, left a balance of £2315, 13s. 9d. due to him. By a deed, dated the 7th of February 1774, James Grant assigned the sum of £750, part of his legacy, to Sir Hugh Inglis, as a security for a debt due from him to Sir H. Inglis; and, by an instrument of even date, he also assigned the sum of £750, other part of the same legacy, to Francis Russell, as a security for a debt due to Russell. By another deed, dated the 2d of January 1779, Peter Grant assigned his legacy of £3000 to James Grant, redeemable upon the payment of £4000. By a deed of the 6th of March 1783, after reciting the assignment of 2d Jan. 1779, James Grant assigned Peter Grant's legacy to Alexander Grant, the Plaintiffs father, and the interest due thereon, and the assignment thereof of the 2d of January 1779. In the month of December 1782 Charles Grant, the Defendant, purchased from James Charles Sholto Douglas an estate called Hope-[342]-well, in Jamaica, for £50,000 ; and Charles Grant prevailed on Peter Grant (they being then both resident in Jamaica) to join with him in executing five bonds to Douglas, in penalties amounting to £22,330, 6s. 2d., for the purpose of securing £10,000, part of the purchase-money, and interest at six per cent. And by an indenture of December 1782, Charles Grant and Peter Grant, both in his own right, and as the attorney for his brother James Grant, assigned to Douglas the three legacies, subject to redemption on payment of the money that was secured by the bonds. In April 1783 James Grant and Peter Grant respectively became bankrupts. The same persons were the assignees under both commissions ; but they were not made parties to the suit after mentioned. In July 1783, and before the bonds were payable, Mr. Douglas, at the request of Charles Grant, filed a bill in the Court of Chancery in Jamaica against the executors of the testator and against Charles, Peter and James Grant, in order to enforce payment of the legacies in part satisfaction of the bonds. In September 1783 Mr. Douglas died, and the suit was revived by G. Cuthbert, John Fergusson and William Boss, his executors ; and on the 21st of May 1788 the cause was heard and a decree was made, referring it to the Master to take an account of what was due on the legacies, and of the real and personal estates of the testator, Sir A. Grant, but no account was directed of the other legacies given by the testator, or of his debts. The Master made a separate report of what was due on the legacies on the llth of May 1789, by which it appeared that there was due for principal and interest £3898, Is. 6d. to James Grant, £5050 to Peter Grant, and £2966, 13s. 4d. [343] to Charles Grant, making altogether £11,914, 14s. lOd. due in respect of the legacies. James Grant had obtained his certificate in June 1783. On the 19th of February 1793 the Master made his general report in the cause, by which he found that there was a very large balance in the hands of the executors amounting to £208,605, 8s. 2cl. currency; and that report was confirmed by an order of the 25th of April 1793, from which, however, there was an appeal to the King in Council, and the order was affirmed. In April 1790 James Grant paid to Inglis and Russell the sums secured by the assignments of the two sums of £750 and £750, portions of his legacy, and those sums were then reassigned to him. Sir Ludovick Grant died in the year 1790, and thereupon Alexander Grant, his eldest aon, became Sir Alexander Grant, and the heir at law and next heir of entail to the testator, and consequently he became entitled to the residue of the testator's real and personal estates, subject to the payment of his debts and legacies. In December 1792 Sir Alexander Grant contracted with Mr. Ross, the surviving s.nu.,JH. GRANT V. GRANT 1027 executor of Mr. Douglas, for the purchase of the debt of £10,000; and, by an indenture of 17th December 1792, the bonds and legacies were assigned by Mr. Ross to Alexander Lindo, in trust for Sir Alexander Grant, upon payment to Ross of the consideration money. In February 1793 actions were brought on the bonds in Jamaica, in the name of Lindo, against Charles Grant; and, on the 3d of May 1793, Charles Grant filed a bill in the Court [344] of Chancery, in Jamaica, against Sir Alexander Grant, Lindo and robs, and against the executors of Sir Alexander Grant, the testator, and against Peter Grant, praying that the assignment to Lindo might bs declared fraudulent, and that the legacies of Charles Grant, Peter Grant and James Grant might be deemed a payment, so far as the same would extend, of the bonds of Charles and Peter Grant, and that Rosa and Lindo might be decreed to resort, for payment of the legacies, to the estate alone of the testator : and that it might b& declared that Charles Grant ought to have the amount due on the legacies applied in reduction of the bonds, and that Sir Alexander Grant and Lindo might be directed to deliver up or cancel the said bonds (Charles Grant offering to pay any balance that should appear due after applying the amount of the legacies as aforesaid) and that it might be referred to the Master to take an account of what was due on the bonds, and that, on the coming in of the report, and on Charles Grant paying into Court the difference between the amount of the legacies and of the bonds, Sir Alexander Grant or Lindo might be directed to deliver up or cancel the bonds; and that, in the meantime, Sir Alexander Grant, Lindo and Ross might be restrained from disposing of the bonds and legacies, and from taking any steps at law, by virtue of the assignment, and also from proceeding at law with any action on the bonds. On the 25th of January 1794 an injunction was granted to restrain Sir Alexander Grant, Ross and Lindo from disposing of the bonds and proceeding at law against Charles Grant upon the same. From that order there was an appeal to His Majesty in Council, [345] and, on the 1st of May 1799, the order of the Court below was affirmed, and Charles Grant was directed to account for all monies received for or on account of the testator, or the legacies given by his will. On the 7th of April 1800 James Grant together with.the assignees under the commiasions against him and Peter Grant, filed a bill in Jamaica against Charles Grant, against the executors of Sir Alexander Grant, the testator, and against Sir Alexander Grant, Peter Grant and Lindo, praying that Charles Grant might be decreed to pay the amount due from him on the bonds to Sir Alexander Grant, so as to exonerate the legacies given to Peter and James Grant, and that those legacies might be paid to the assignees out of the estates of the testator, and that an account might be taken of the real and personal estates of the testator, and of his debts and legacies. On the 2d of February 1807 a decree was pronounced in this suit, by which it was ordered that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
William Hyde, since Deceased, v Mary Price, John Price, William Price, William Mann Godshall, Thomas Shearcroft, Edward Walwyn Shepherd, and William John Playters, all since Deceased, and The Governor and Company of the Bank of England; and George Hart v Chase Cradock, William Temple, George Maule, and William Brown and Mary, his wife
...not be allowed interest beyond the penalty, is where he is prevented by injunction from recovering his debt at law. See Grant v. Grant, 3 Simons, 340 ; S. C. on appeal, 3 Russell, 598. So in East India Company v. Campion, 11 Bligh, 158, 187, Lord Brougham [Cottenham]-after stating that the ......
-
John Attwood v John Taylor James Henry Shears, and Robert Small
...assertion of it at law is unconscientiously obstructed, relief should be given in equity." In Grant v. Grant (3 Bussell, 607; S. C. 3 Sim. 340), it was held that in a court of equity, a debt received by bond may be carried beyond the penalty of the bond, if the debtor has, by injunction, re......
-
Brown v Newall
...two parties, thought it right to give interest on those arrears from [573] the time of the filing of the bill. The case of Grcunt v. Grant (3 Sim. 340; see p. 364; 3 Russ. 598; see p. 607, et seq.) lays down the same proposition, and Lord Eldon there refers to the case of Duvall v. Terrey i......
-
Same against Heath
...In [15] equity, the penalty of the bond is not considered a necessary limit; Jeudwim v. Agate (3 Sim. 129), Grant v. Grant (3 Russ. 598, 3 Sim. 340). In Hellen v. Ardley (3 Car. & P. 12), an action on a bond, Lord Tenterden thought that the plaintiff could not have more than the penalty : b......