Green against Croft and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 May 1792 |
| Date | 12 May 1792 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 126 E.R. 412
IN THE COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
grebn against croft and others. Saturday, May 12th, 1792. Where there is a devise to A. for life, of the rents and profits of a real estate, and the interest and dividends of personal property, and after his death, the whole estates, both real and personal, to be divided between B. and C., the executors and trustees are bound to pay to A. the annual produce of the personal as well aa real property, (especially if the personal property be money in the funds,) without requiring a receipt stamped as for a legacy; such annual payment not being subject to the tax (a)2 imposed on legacies. [By stat. 20 Geo. 3, c. 28, 23 Geo. 3, c. 58.] Quaere, whether in any ease an executor can refuse to pay a legacy until a receipt or discharge be given 1 This was au action for money had and received to the uae of the Plaintiff; the Defendant pleaded the general issue, and a verdict was found for the Plaintiff, for 10621. 7s. 6Jd., subject to the opinion of the Court, on a ease, the material part of which stated, that on the 27th of December, 1782, George Huddlestou, by hia will devised all his real and personal estates to the Defendants " James Croft, George Hiid-dleston, Jervoiae Purefoy, and John Walker, their heirs, executors, and administrators, in trust that they and the survivor of them, and the heirs, executors and administrators of anch survivor, do and shall receive all and singular the rents and profits, interests (a)1 [Accord. Pool v. Charnock, 3 T. R. 79. Law v. Smith, 4 T. E. 436 (). So if the attorney admit it in effect, though not in terms, Miller v. Cmtsins, 2 Bos. & Pul. 329. See also Spotm&r v. Garland, 2 M. & S. 474. Hawkins v. Snuggs, 2 M. & S. 476. Eicke \. Sowerby, 1 B. & C. 287. But where it did not appear but that the declaration of the Defendant that he would delay the Plaintiff was made before any action pending the Court refused leave to take out execution after error brought. Barkett v. Barnard, 4 M. & S. 331. And in Rawlins v. Perry, 1 Bos. & Pul. N. E. 307, the Court would not allow the Plaintiff to take out execution pending a writ of error, merely because the Defendant's attorney had declared that the debt would be settled, and that time was all the Defendant wanted. So the Court set aside an execution issued, pending a writ of error sued out before final judgment signed, when the Defendant had six months previously declared that if the Plaintiff did not accept the terms then proposed, he should never have any thing, and that he (the Defendant) would ultimately bring a writ of error. Bedford v. Qarrod, 1 B. Moore, 253. 7 Taunt, 537,;S. C. See;Tidd's Prac. 1202, 8th edit, and ante, vol. i. p. 432.] 0) Goodin y. Hammond, Trin. 31 Geo. 3, C. B. A rule was obtained to shew cause why all proceedings should not be staid in an action on a judgment, pending a writ of error. On shewing cause, it appeared that the Defendant in the original action had once taken out a summons to pay the debt and costs, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial