Jackson against Lever and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 1792 |
| Date | 24 May 1792 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 29 E.R. 724
IN COURT, EASTER TERM
Followed, Kenney v. Wexham, 1822, 6 Madd. 357.
[605] jackson against levee and Others. In Court, Easter Term,' 24i/i May 1792. [Followed, Kenney v. Wexham, 1822, 6 Madd. 357.] A contract that the one party shall convey an estate, and the other shall grant an annuity, shall be carried into execution, though the vendor died previous to any payment of the annuity (one having accrued due, and having been tendered). (1) A memorial of such contract need not be enrolled under the annuity act, 17 Geo. 3. The bill stated that Sir Ashton Lever Knight, deceased, being seised in fee, of considerable real estates in Lancashire, subject to a mortgage of £10,000 and other in-cumbrances, caused several parts thereof to be advertised for sale by public auction, in order to discharge such incumbrances ; and several parts thereof were sold to various persons, some for money considerations, and others in consideration of annuities to be granted by the respective purchasers to the said Sir Ashton Lever for his life. That the plaintiff became the purchaser of certain messuages lying at Middleton, then in the possession of himself and of the widow Bamford, in consideration of an annuity of £280 a-year ; and a contract was entered into, bearing date July 27th, 1787, whereby Sir Ashton agreed to convey the fee-simple and inheritance of the premises therein described, to the plaintiff, his heirs, and assigns ; he and they yielding and paying to the said Sir Ashton, and his assigns, an annuity or clear yearly rent of £280, payable quarterly at the usual days, the first payment to be made on the 25th of December then next. The premises were sold subject to a lease, Sir Ashton to have the rents till Michaelmas then next. And it was provided, that in case Sir Ashton Lever should happen to die before the 29th day of September then next, the contract should be absolutely void, and Sir Ashton's heirs not bound to convey the premises. And the plaintiff further agreed, that for securing the said sum of £280 a-year, the said premises should be conveyed to such trustee, and in such manner, as the counsel or attorney of Sir Ashton should advise ; and, that as a further security, 3 BED. C. C. 606. JACKSON V. LEVER 725 the plaintiff would procure and give good and sufficient landed security, to the satisfaction of Sir Ashton's counsel, for the payment of the said annuity of £280 to the said Sir Ashton; in which securities, all such powers and remedies should be comprised for recovery by Sir Ashton Lever, as his counsel should advise. A short time after entering into the contract, plaintiff delivered to the defendant Milne, who was the agent of Sir Ashton [606] Lever, the title deeds and other particulars of certain estates whereof the plaintiff was seised, which, together with the purchased premises, were intended to be made a securityfor the annuity of £280, and the defendant Milne having examined into the title, &c., of the said estates, declared himself satisfied with the security, and promised to prepare the conveyances for carrying the contract into execution. Sir Ashton Lever survived the 29th of September ensuing the date of the contract, but in consequence of some delays, the defendant Milne did not prepare the conveyances before the 25th December 1787. On or about the 29th of the same month, plaintiff waited on the defendant Milne, and offered to pay him, on behalf of Sir Ashton Lever, the quarter's annuity which had then become due, but he declined receiving the same, saying that the conveyance would be very soon completed, and that it was not necessary for him to make such payment in the mean time, nor would the defendant Milne receive any money from any of the annuity purchasers, until the conveyances were ready. The defendant Milne afterwards prepared the conveyances, and sent them to London, to be settled by counsel, from whence he received them, on the evening of the 1st of February 1788; but on that day, Sir Ashton Lever died after a sudden and short illness of only two days, so that none of the conveyances were or could be executed by him. Sir Ashton Lever left the defendant, John Lever, his heir at law, and in his life-time had made a will and codicil, whereby the defendants Bamford and Milne were appointed his executors, and others of the defendants claimed different interests; in particular, he devised real and personal estates to the defendants Bamford and Milne, by sale or mortgage, to raise such sums as would pay his debts, legacies, &c., without the aid of his personal estate, which was not to be disposed of till the death of his wife. The plaintiff, by the bill, charged, that the contract was fair and advantageous to Sir Ashton Lever, had he lived, and that he had declared himself satisfied therewith, and that he had often [607] declared himself fully determined to perform the same as soon as he should be enabled so to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bower v Cooper
...& Pur. p. 440, 10th ed. citing Pope jr. Soots (1 Bro. P. G. 370, Tom. ed.), Mortimer v. Capper (1 Bro. C. C. 156), and Jackson v. Lever (3 Bro. C. C. 605). [410] Mr. Sharpe and Mr. Lewin, for the Plaintiff, and Mr. Anderdon and Mr. James, for the Defendant. May 3. the ViGE-CHANCELLOR held t......
-
George Vesey, - Appellant; John Bodkin, - Respondent
...of the money. The money was paid * Wood v. Griffith, 19 Ves. 550. t 17 Ves. 241. Mortimer v. Capper, 1 Bro. C. C. 156. Jackson v. Leven, 3 Bro. C. C. 605. Paine v. Mellor, 6 Ves. 349. I Smith v. Clay, 3 B. C. C. 639, n. 1 Vern. and Scriv. 1. 27 IV BLIGH N. S. CHICHESTER V. M'lNTIRE [1830] i......
-
Minor, ex parte
...by the purchaser in consequence of the event: White v. Nutt (1 P. Will. 61). Mortimer v. Capper (1 Bro. C. C. 156). Jackson v. Lever (3 Bro. C. C. 605). In Mortimer v. Capper no payment had been made ; and yet the principle, that from the date of the contract the estate belonged to the purc......
-
Paine v Meller
...220). Pope v. Boots (7 Bro. P. C. 184). òò; Mr. Mansfield, in Reply. "ò All the cases' referred to are got rid of by Jackson v. Lever (3 Bro. C. C. 605). The former cases proceeded upon this fallacy, that the party could not have the thing bought ; for chance had decided against him : but h......