Jackson v Rawlins
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 November 1960 |
| Date | 19 November 1960 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 23 E.R. 726
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Case 176.-moyses versus little. Mercurii, 19 die Novemb. [1690]. [1] Eq. Ca. Ab. 53, pi. 4, S. C. Father on his son's marriage covenants, during his life to pay his son 15 per ann., the son becomes a bankrupt. His creditors shall not have the benefit of this agreement. The defendant on marriage of his son settles lands on himself for life, remainder to his son for life, &c., and covenants during his own life, to pay his son fifteen pounds per ann., the son becomes a bankrupt, the plaintiff as an assignee brings the bill against the defendant the father, to have the benefit of this agreement, and to compel payment of the fifteen pounds per ann. Per Cur. An assignee under a statute of bankrupt, is not intitled to have the performance of an agreement made with the bankrupt, and that it was so adjudged in the case of Drake and the Mayor of Exeter,(T) and therefore dismissed the bill. Vide Jones's Rep. 437, the case of Crisps and Pratt, that copyhold lands are within the statute of the 13th of Elizabeth,^) and Parker and Bleake, that the widow of-a copyholder, who was a bankrupt, and where the commissioners had made an assignment of the copyhold, shall not have her Free-Bench. 2 VEEN. 195. JACKSON V. RAWLINS 727 (1) Eq. Ca. Ab. 53, pi. 1; 1 Ch. Ca. 1; Nel. Ch. Rep. 102. [2 Freem. 183, and see Brooke v. Hewitt, 3 Ves. 253, and Weatherall v. Geering, 12 Ves. 504.] (2) 13 Eliz. cap. 7, sec. 2; Cro. Car. 568. Et vide Vandenanker v. Desbrougli, ante, 96. Peters v. Soames, post, 428.
English Reports Citation: 23 E.R. 727
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Case 177.-jackson versus rawlins. 20 die Nov. [1690]. [1] Eq. Ca. Ab. 3, pi. 10, S. C. A man marries an administratrix. Plaintiff obtains a decree against him and his wife for 1500, she dies. Whether the plaintiff can proceed against the husband, without reviving against the administrator of the wife. A man having married an administratrix, the plaintiff obtains a decree against the husband and wife for one thousand five hundred pounds, out of the estate of the intestate ; then the wife dies. The question was, whether he could proceed against the husband without reviving and bringing an administrator of the wife before the court. It was insisted, that although the decree is to pay only out of assets, and though the wasting might be before the coverture, yet now the husband and wife are bound to answer it, as far as any...
To continue reading
Request your trial