Jacquet v Jacquet
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 June 1859 |
| Date | 15 June 1859 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 54 E.R. 130
ROLLS COURT
See Cunningham v. Foot, 1878, 3 App. Cas. 993.
[332] jacquet v. jacquet. June 12, 15, 1859. [See Cunningham v. Foot, 1878, 3 App. Cas. 993.] A testator charged his real estates with his debts, and he devised his C. plantation in trust to pay his debts. He died in 1834, and the produce of C. being in Court: Held, in 1859, that the creditors were not barred as to the fund in Court, a trust having been created in their favor, but that they were barred as to the other real estates, they having a mere charge thereon. The testator was resident in Jamaica. He had two plantations called "Content" and "Epsom." By his will, dated in 1832, the testator requested his executors to " pay and discharge his funeral expenses and all just and legal demands that might be against him," " with the payment of which (he said) I do charge and make liable all my property in Jamaica both real and personal," &c. "It is my desire, and I do hereby direct, that my executors hereinafter named, or such of them as shall qualify under this my will, do dispose of the freehold of Content plantation, with the buildings thereon," &c., " the moneys arising from the sale thereof to be applied to the liquidation of my debts, and the overplus (if any) to fall into the residue of my estate. All the rest, residue and remainder of my property in Jamaica, but subject to the payment of ray debts and legacies comprised of Epsom plantation," &c., &c., " and everything else on the plantation or elsewhere in Jamaica, of whatsoever nature and kind," he gave, devised and bequeathed to certain persons whom he named. The testator died in 1834, and in 1843 the plantations were sold to Philip Jacquet and the money was in Court. The Chief Clerk found that a debt of 318 was still due to Spicer, and that he had a claim to that amount on the trust funds. The question was whether the real estate was charged with the debt, and whether his remedy against the estate and the produce was or not barred by the Statute of Limitations. [333] The Plaintiff took out a summons to vary the certificate by finding that he had no claim on the trust funds. Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Rudall, for the Plaintiff. Mr. Bagshawe and Mr. Southgate, for Spicer. Mr. Foflett and Mr. F. S. Williams, for Philip Jacquet. Mr. Horsay, for White and wife. Mr. W. D. Lewis and Mr. Higgins, for Isabella Jacquet. Mr. Selwyn, in reply. Dundas v. Blake (11 Irish Equity Rep. 138); Phillippo...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dickinson v Teasdale
...d. Rawlings v. Walker (5 B. & C. Ill, 118); Knight v. Bowyer (2 De G. & Jo. 421); Tasker v. Smatt (6 Sim. 625) and Jacqitet v. Jacquet (27 Beav. 332), when considered together, support the Plaintiffs case. It would be a narrow construction of this statute to apply it only where an actual es......
-
Proud v Proud
...trust within the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, and therefore it was barred by the 40th seetion as a charge or legacy ; Jatcguet v. Jacquet (27 Beav. 332); Francis v, Grover (5 Hare, 39); Greenway v. Bromfield (9 Hare, 201); Wilkinson, v. Wilkinson, (9 Hare, 204). [237] Mr. Kendall, for Mr. and Mrs.......
-
Re Harvey
...they accept £80 from the debtors, which is received by the solicitor. The company then come here and ask R. vii.-5 130 JACQUET V. JACQUET 27 BEAV. 332. that the solicitor may pay over the money or be struck off the Eolls. If he has acted as the solicitor of the company, then by the ordinary......