Hicks against Hicks

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of the King's Bench
Judgment Date10 November 1802
Date10 November 1802

English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 502


Hicks against Hicks

hicks against HiCKS. Wednesday, Nov. 10th, 1802. Where the grantee of an annuity, set aside for a defective registry, brings an action for money had and received to recover back the consideration-money paid for it, the grantor may set off the payments made in respect of such annuity though for more than six years, unless the plaintiff reply the Statute of Limitations. This was an action for money had and received to recover back 7111. the consideration money paid many years ago for an annuity granted by the defendant to the plaintiff; but which annuity after having been paid for several ye'ars (more than six) bad been recently set aside by the Court on the application of the defendant for a defect in the memorial of registry. The defendant pleaded a set-off of more money paid to the plaintiff's use than was due to him: and this appeared at the trial to be true, provided the defendant was at liberty to set off-all the payments which had been made to the plaintiff in respect of the annuity for more than six years past; which Lord Ellenborough held that he might, the plaintiff not having replied the Statute of Limitations: upon which a verdict [17] passed for the defendant at the last sittings before his Lordship. Erskine now moved to set aside the verdict, and have a new trial, x n the ground that a- party, who had set aside an annuity on account of illegality, and had refused to execute a new security for the consideration he had received (a fact which he stated to have appeared at the trial), had no right to consider those which then appeared to have been his own voluntary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • School Facility Management Ltd v Governing Body of Christ the King College
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 10 June 2020
    ...... which should be ordered: a) In what amount is SFM is entitled to judgment against the College? b) Is the College entitled to a declaration that the Contract is ultra ... for money had and received on the ground of unjust enrichment and as was expressly held in Hicks v Hicks (1802) 3 East 16 , 102 ER 502 , the claim cannot be asserted without at the same time ......
  • TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Company Ltd v The Judges of the Federal Court of Australia
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 13 March 2013
    ...... for recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award to be refused at the request of a party against whom the arbitral award is invoked, if and to the extent that the party can furnish proof to the ......
  • Gainsford v Griffith
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 1 January 1845
    ...3 M. & S. 155, Middleton v. Bryan ; and bonds given to the Chancellor by the petitioning creditor on suing out a commission of bankrupt. 3 East, 16, Smithey v. Edmonsan. For in the two former cases the Court can relieve the defendant without his being compelled to file a bill in equity ; an......
  • School Facility Management Ltd v Governing Body of Christ the King College
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 12 July 2021
    ...in the authorities and academic writings, to which I now turn. The authorities The annuity cases 36 Hicks v Hicks (1802) 3 East 17, 102 ER 502, was one of a number of late 18 th and early 19 th Century cases in which the claimant sought to recover the lump sum paid for an annuity which was ......
  • 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