Hill v Caillovel
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 October 1748 |
| Date | 26 October 1748 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 931
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
hill v. caillovel, Oct. 26,1748. Post Obit, security. Bond by A. in 1720 for payment in six months after his father's death, if he survived, otherwise to be void; the father then seventy, and dies in 1731, A. in 1734 ; no relief against the penalty ; there being no proof of imposition although suspicious circumstances in it. (See, however, Supplement, p. 297; and Evans v. Chesshire, Supplement, p. 300.) Thomas Hill at the age of twenty-four in 1720 entered into a bond to Isaac Caillovel for the payment of 520 within six months after his father's death, if he survived him : if not, to be void ; the father being then seventy. The obligee died in 1720, his executor in 1722 assigned it for valuable consideration, for ought that appeared to the contrary, to Lane; the father died in 1731, after his death and the death of Lane, letters were wrote to the son, demanding it; who did not deny his entering into it, but disputed his knowing any thing of the executor of Lane. No action was brought thereon in the life of the son who died in 1734, but afterward application was made to his widow and executrix : and a composition offered, with which she did not comply. An action was brought: and verdict and judgment followed thereon; but before judgment the executrix brought this bill for relief, against the representative at a fourth hand of the obligee, and against the executor 932 REECH V. KENNEGAL 1VES. SEN. 123. of Lane, as being obtained from an extravagant young heir, necessitous, and dependent upon his father; and an extraordinary loan under oppressive and hard circumstances. Nor could the assignment alter [123] it; or put the assignee in a better case than the obligee himself ; for he must take it subject to all the equity upon it. Lord Chancellor. A very strong case for the defendant; it is true, that the rule of the court is, that on a bond from a young heir in life of his father, being extravagant, &c., the court will hold the creditor to strict proof, and either relieve against, or reduce it to the sum that was advanced; and had this question arisen recently between the original creditor and debtor, and a bill brought for relief, that appearance in the condition of the bond would have made me expect an account from the defendant upon what...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cavendish v Geaves
...point in question was decided by the Lords Justices in Ex parte Greaves (2 Jur. (N. S.) 651). [They also referred to Hill v. Caillwel (1 Ves. sen. 122).] Mr. R. Palmer and Mr. Baggalav, for Mrs. Gore. The right of set-off is a passive right, but here the Plaintiff comes into equity to enfor......
-
In. The Matter of The Gwelo (Matabeleland) Exploration and Development Company, Ltd (Williamson's Claim.)
...11 Eq. 478. Ex parte MackensieELR L. R. 7 Eq. 240. Fountaine v. The Carmarthen Railway CompanyELR L. R. 5 Eq. 316. Hill v. CailovelENR 1 Ves. Sen. 122. In re Agra and Masterman's BankELR L. R. 2 Ch. App. 391. In re Blakeley Ordnance CompanyELR L. R.3 Ch. App. 154. In re General Estates Co E......
-
Lady Laura Tollemache, - Appellant; The earl and Countess of Coventry, - Respondents
...v. Trafford (3 Atk. 347); Foley v. Burrell (1 Bro'. C.C. 247, and 4 Bro. P.' C. 319); Bridgewater v. Egerton (1 Bro. C.C. 280; S.C. 1 Ves. sen. 122); Vaughan v. Burslem (3 Bro. C.C. 101); Carr v. Lord Errol (14 Ves. 478); Gee v. Lord Audley (1 Cox, 324); Humberstone v. Humberstone (1 P. Win......
-
Earl of Chesterfield and Others Executors of John Spencer v Sir Abraham Janssen
...Ves. 512.; and Evans v. Chesshire, Supplement, p. 300.) No relief given in this case, except as to the penalty. (See Hill v. Caillovel, 1 Ves. sen. 122.) (1 Atk. 301, S. C.; Cowp. 770; Brown, 1; 2 Vern. 14, 27, 121; 1 Wms. 310; 3 Wms. 290 ; 2 Atk. 133.)-[Supplement, 297.] The state of the c......