Guidot v Guidot, between the Seals after Trinity Term
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1745 |
| Date | 01 January 1745 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 948
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See In re Greaves's Settlement Trusts, 1883, 23 Ch. D. 319; Wills Act, 1837, 7 Wm. 4 & 1 Vict. C. 26, s. 27.
Case 84.-greerside and Others versus benson and Others, June 28, 1745. [See Bolton v. Powell, 1852, 2 De G. M. & G. 21.] S. C. cited 2 Ves. 368.-The plaintiffs were two sureties with Mrs. Hudson in an administration bond to the commissary of York, who exhibited an inventory there of the intestate's effects ; the defendant Benson, being a creditor by bond of the intestate in the penalty of 600, brought his action against the administratrix, who pleaded she had no assets ultra 54. Benson, not satisfied with the inventory, procured the commissary to assign to him the administration bond, and brought three actions on it, one against her, and one against each of the sureties, and assigned for breach of the bond, that Mrs. Hudson had not exhibited a true inventory; no defence, and judgment by default. The administratrix and the sureties are bound by the verdict, and no excuse, it was without defence, for that speaks a consciousness she had none; and the court ordered the verdict should stand as a security for so much as the account to be taken on the inventory should fall short to satisfy Mr. Benson's principal and interest on his bond. (Vide Ashley v. Baillie, 2 Ves. 368. Wallis v. Pipon, Amb. 183.) The plaintiffs were two sureties with the defendant Mrs. Hudson in an administration bond given to the commissary of York, according to the statute of distributions, for her bringing in a true and perfect inventory of the intestate's effects; the defendant Mrs. Hudson did afterwards exhibit an inventory in the spiritual court of York. The defendant Benson, being a creditor of the intestate by bond in the penalty of 600, brought an action against the defendant Mrs. Hudson upon that bond, and she pleaded that she had not assets ultra 54, which she paid into court. The defendant Benson, not being satisfied with the inventory brought in by her, procured the commissary of York (by indemnifying him) to assign the administration bond to him, and he put it in suit by bringing three several actions, one against her, and one against each of the sureties; and assigned for breach of the bond, that she had not exhibited a true and perfect inventory. [249] These causes came on to be tried, and no defence was made by the two sureties, and there was judgment for the plaintiff by default. The bill is brought against the defendant Benson, insisting that he as a creditor had no right to put the bond in suit against the sureties, according to the statute, and prayed an injunction to stay the proceedings at law. Mr. Solicitor General, for the plaintiffs in equity, cited the case of The Archbishop of Canterbury versus Wills, Salk. 315. The question (he said) was, Whether the bond taken by the ordinary under the statute of 22 & 23 Ch. 2, relating to intestates' estates, is to be confined only to the exhibiting an inventory for the benefit of the next of kin, or whether it extends to creditors. The 31 Ed. 3, stat. l,c.ll, the 21 Hen. 8, c. 5, and Ch. 2, do not extend to residuary legatees, but-is expressly tied down to an intestacy, so even that case is out of that statute. 3ATK. 250. GREERSIDE 1). BENSON 945 As there have been cases determined already upon this point, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Acherley v Vernon
...v. Sowray, 1 Peer. Wms. 172. Beaudear v. Mead, 2 Atk. 169. OldJiam v. Hughes, 2 Atk. 453. Pullen v. Beady, 2 Atk. 590. Guidot v. Guidot, 3 Atk. 254. Pultney v. Earl of Darlington, 1 Brown C. C. 224. Rashleigh v. Master, 3 Brown. C. C. 99. Whitaker v. Whitaker, 4 Brown. C. C. 31. But where A......
-
William Pulteney, Esq., and Frances his wife, Plaintiffs; The Earl of Darlington and Others, Defendants
...will, Alleyn v. Alleyn, Mose. 262 ; Langford v. Pitt; but will pass as land by the word elsewhere, Lingen v. Sowray; Guidott v. Guidott, 3 Atkyns, 254. (Vide 1 Bro. P. C. 555, 556, octavo ed.) And a general devise to a legatee will not pass money so to be laid out, Cross v. Addenbroke, Fulh......
-
Harcourt v Seymour
...Mr. Leach, who was with Mr. Holt, cited 1 Jarman on Wills, 534, 535, Lingen v. Smaray (1 P: W. 172; see 176), and Gwidot t. Guidot (3 Atk. 254). Mr. Selwyn (Mr. James Parker was with him) appeared for George Simon Harcourt and his son, who also were tenants for life and in tail male under E......
-
Langley v Sneyd and Others
...trustee to keep the (1) Babinglan v. Greenwood, 1 P. W. 532; Baden v. Earl of Pembroke, 3 Cha. Rep. 115; 2 Vern. 52 ; Guidott v. Guidott, 3 Atk. 254, &c.; Ashby v. Palmer, 1 Meriv. 29( , &c., &c. 22 SWAYNB V. SMITH 1 SIM. & BT. M. estate in the same situation during the whole continuance of......