Gregory and Parker v Williams

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date08 December 1817
Date08 December 1817
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 36 E.R. 224


Gregory and Parker

See Grundy v. Heathcote, 1863, 1 H. & M. 175; Drew v. Martin, 1864, 2 H. & M. 133. Explained, In re Empress Engineering Co., 1880, 16 Ch. D. 125. See Lloyd's v. Harper, 1880, 16 Ch. D. 315; Touche v. Metropolitan Railway Warehousing Co., 1871, L. R. 6 Ch. 677; In re Flavell, 1883, 25 Ch. D. 95.

*-iSi~- [582] gregory and parker v. williams, Rolls. Dec. 4-8, 1817. [See Grundy v. Heathcote, 1803, 1 H. & M. 175 ; Drew v. Martin, 1864, 2 H. & M. 133. Explained, In re Empress Engineering Co., 1880, 1C Ch. D. 125. See Lloyd's V. Harper, 1880, 10 Ch. D. 315 ; Touche v. Metropolitan Railway Warehousing Co., 1871, L. R. G Ch. 677 ; In re Flavell, 1883, 25 Ch. D. 95.] W. landlord to P., having the power to distrain for rent in arrear, and having actually distrained for part, and being a creditor of P. for money lent, as well as for rent in arrear, upon P.'s representing to him that he is also indebted to G. to the amount of about £900, for which he is in fear of arrest and about to leave the country, undertakes that if P. will give up to him the farm, and execute an assignment of all his property, he will pay CI.'s debt in the first instance, out of the proceeds, and apply the residue in satisfaction of his own demand, and the surplus (if any) to P., who executes a bill of sale to W. accordingly on the faith of such undertaking. Upon the bill of G. and P., this agreement was enforced against W. to the extent of £900, the alleged amount of G.'s debt, but no further; the actual debt having proved to exceed that amount; and not prevented from having effect, either by the circumstance that P.'s property fell short of the estimated amount, or of P.'s being at the time indebted to other persons besides G. and W., which formed no part of the consideration for the agreement, although noticed in W.'.v undertaking as having been represented otherwise. The engagement not to pay G. in the first instance, not being made directly to G. but through the medium of P., by whom also the consideration was furnished, P. held in a court of equity to be a Trustee for G. But qucere, if the Plaintiffs could recover at law upon such an agreement. The Bill made the following case. In August 1813, the Plaintiff Gregory being in the occupation of a certain farm as tenant to the Defendant, and having a considerable, farming stock and crops thereon, with the Defendant's consent gave up the possession of the farm to the Plaintiff Parker, who thereupon agreed to give him (Gregory) the sum of £1069, 7s. (id. (the estimated value) as a consideration for the stock and crops, of which he also took possession ; and, not being able to pay the amount at the time, gave his promissory note for the same, payable on the 2d of February 1815, [583] with interest. After this arrangement was concluded, Parser held the farm, as tenant to the Defendant, till he quitted the same on the occasion of his executing the bill of sale after mentioned. On the 1st of January 1815, there being a considerable amount of rent in arrear, and Parker being moreover indebted 3MBB. 584. OREfiORY I'. WILLIAMS 225 to the Defendant £539, los. for monies advanced, the Defendant distrained on the premises ; and Parker being then desirous to pay off the sum. so due to the Defendant as well as his debt to Gregory, the Defendant undertook that, if he (Parker) would give up the farm, and assign to him (the Defendant) all his stock and crops thereon, and all other his property and effects, he (the Defendant) would, out of the produce thereof, in the first place pay what was due to Gregory on the promissory note, and apply the residue (ao far as the same would extend) in satisfaction of his (the Defendant's) demand, and pay the surplus (if any) to Parker. Parker consented to the terms proposed, and, upon the faith thereof, executed to the Defendant a bill of sale of all his property accordingly ; whereupon, for the better securing the performance of his undertaking to pay Gregory's debt in the first instance, he (the Defendant) gave to Parker the following undertaking in writing. " Mr. Williams will satisfy (fregory's demand, which he apprehends is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Beswick v Beswick
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 22 June 1966
    ...that the third person himself can sue in equity to enforce the contract vsett Tomlinson v. Gill (1756) Buller, 330; Gregory v. Williams (1817) 3 Mer. 582; but even so, he ought as a rule to join the trustee as a party. Here we have a case where there is admittedly no trust of the contractua......
  • TKM (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Export Credit Insurance Corporation Of Singapore Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 14 September 1992
    ... ... Other witnesses (Bookless, Mrs Lloyd and Williams) also asserted that TKM-UK agreed to act as the agent of TKMS and actually did so. They regarded ... In Gregory v Williams ,17 Williams entered into an agreement with one Parker that if Parker transferred ... ...
  • Motor Insurers' Bureau of Singapore and another v AM General Insurance Bhd (formerly known as Kurnia Insurans (Malaysia) Bhd) (Liew Voon Fah, third party)
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 23 February 2018
    ...v Seah Boon Lock [2008] 4 SLR(R) 272; [2008] 4 SLR 272 (folld) Gandy v Gandy (1884) 30 Ch D 57 (folld) Gregory and Parker v Williams (1817) 3 Mer 582; 36 ER 224 (refd) Gurtner v Circuit [1968] 2 QB 587 (folld) Hameed Jagubar bin Syed Ahmad v Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Berhad [2017] MLJU ......
  • Kenney v Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 19 February 1901
    ...[1899] 1 I. R. 176. Empress Engineering CompanyELR 16 Ch. D. 125. Gandy v. GandyELR 30 Ch. D. 57. Gemmell v. Cuming Gregory v. WilliamsENR 3 Mer. 582. Hagedorn v. OliversonENR 2 M. & S. 485. Leeds v. CheethamENR 1 Sim. 146. Lloyds v. HarperELR 16 Ch. D. 290. Lofft v. Dennis 1 Ell. & Ell. 47......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT