Hills v Hills
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 January 1803 |
| Date | 18 January 1803 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 689
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS.
Subsequent proceedings, sub nomine Hicks v. Hicks, 3 East, 16. Distinguished, Davis v. Bryan, 1827, 6 B. & C. 651.
July 15th. hills v. h[lls.* (Where an annuity is void for a defect in the memorial, and the grantee brings an action to recover the consideration, the grantee, under a plea of set-off, may give in evidence the whole of the payments made on account of the annuity ; but if any are of any more than six years standing, the plaintiff should reply the Statute of Limitations.) [Subsequent proceedings, sub nomine Hwks v. Hicks, 3 East, 16. Distinguished, Dam* v. Bryan, 1827, 6 B. & C. 651.] * This is the same case with that reported in 3d East's Rep. by the name of v. Hicks. The true name of the ease is Hills v. Hills. 690 HARROP V. GREEN 4 ESP. 197. Assumpsit for money had and received. Pleas of nan assumpstt and set-off \ and issues on both pleas. The plaintiff and defendant were brothers ; and the plaintiff being entitled to 700 as his share of his father's property in the defendant's hands, they had come to an agreement, That the defendant [i97] should pay to the plaintiff an annuity erf 84 per ami. for his life. The memorial of this annuity not having been duly registered, was void under the statute ; and the plaintiff having brought an action on the annuity-deed, the defendant had pleaded that it was so void for want of a memorial; upon which the plaintiff entered a noh prosequi, and now brought his action to recover the consideration. The defendant did not dispute the plaintiff's right of action ; but relied on the set-off of the payments made under the annuity, as more than covering the amount of the demand, they having been paid for eleven years , and which several payments, when taken together, amounted to a sum exceeding what the plamtift claimed, viz. 1924. It was contended for the plaintiti, That the payment of the annuity being voluntary, and made before the annuity was set aside, that the plaintiff had a right to keep the sums so paid . and so they could not be the object of a set-oil. Secondly, That even if it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sharpe and Another, Assignees of Harrison an Insolvent, v Thomas
...(8 T. R. 411)), within the meaning of tbe act. It operates as a charge upon the property of the person giving it; and in Miks v. Eawlyns (4 Esp. 196), Lord Ellenborough said it appeared to him to constitute a debitum in prasaenti. Then, the charge being voluntary, and the party insolvent, t......
- Hicks against Hicks