John Bradshaw and Others, - Appellants; Sir John Astley and Others, - Respondents
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 April 1717 |
| Date | 02 April 1717 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 2 E.R. 345
House of Lords
Where a debt is liquidated by a report, the whole carries interest from the time of confirming such report; and so toties quoties as any new report is made.
case 3.-john beadshaw and others,-Appellants; Sir john astley and others,-Respondents [2d April 1717]. [Where a debt is liquidated by a report, the whole carries interest from the time of confirming such report; and so toties quoties as any new report is made.] ** decree of Lord Keeper Harcourt confirmed. The present Editor cannot discover the point of this case, as stated by Mr. Brown. It seems to have turned on the complicated account of a trust estate; and to be like too many inserted in the work, of too private a nature to require notice. See ante case 1, and the notes there. The following seems the true point of this case: Account is to be taken with an annual rest, each year's account to carry interest, in cases where trustee has paid off incumbranees with his own money. Likewise in cases of arrears of annuities and old mortgages, Mss. table to the most remarkable points in cases upon appeals to th-e House of Lords; from 1701 to about 1728; said to be Ld. Harcourt's penes Ed. This is the Mss. table so frequently cited in Viner's Abridgment.** Walter Bressey being seised in fee of the manor of Odston, and certain lands thereunto belonging, in the county of Leicester; by deed dated the 12th of April 1661, in consideration of £1000 paid to him by one John Gisburne, charged part of [506] this estate with a yearly rent of £100 payable to Gisburne for a term of twenty years and an half, and then to determine. In 1663, Walter died without issue and intestate; whereupon his estate, subject to Gisburne's rent-charge and other debts, descended to Thomas Bressey, his brother and heir; who, by indentures of lease and release, dated the 1st and 2d of May 1665, conveyed the premises to Sir Richard Astley, (the respondent Sir John's father,) John Needham, and Mary Bressey, (the now respondent Brad-shaw,) to the use of himself for life, and then to the trustees and their heirs, upon trust, that out of the rents and profits, or by mortgage, sale, or otherwise, as they should think fit, they should raise money for the payment of his debts, with damages for forbearance; and after his debts paid, then to raise £40 for the trustees Astley and Needham, and to pay the residue as follows; viz. one moiety thereof to his sister the said Mary Bressey, and the other moiety betwteen his sister Katherine and the children of Dorothy the wife of Edward Dorcas. And on the 3d of the same month he also made his will; whereby, after confirming the above settlement, he declared that his said sister Katherine and the children of Dorcas should accept of the trustees' account of the surplus, without any trouble or suit in law, he having an assured confidence in their integrity; and he gave the residue of his personal estate to his said sister Mary Bressey, and appointed his three trustees executors of his will. On the 7th of June following the testator died; when Needham and Bressey declining the trusts, Sir Richard the other trustee entered on the estate, and took upon himself the sole management of the testator's affairs. The estate being greatly incumbered, and not yielding one year with another, while Gisburne's rent-charge subsisted, above £30 per ann. clear; Sir Richard Astley paid all the debts and incumbrances out of his own money. It is supposed, that Sir Richard in his lifetime got some absolute conveyance of this estate from the parties entitled thereto; for after his death a deed was found 345 IV BROWN. BRADSHAW V. ASTLEY [1717] amongst his writings, dated the 14th of November 1668, enrolled in Chancery, and made between one Henry Frith of the one part, and Sir Richard Astley of the other part; whereby Frith, in performance of a trust reposed in him by Sir Eichard, conveyed the premises to him in fee; and in this deed notice was taken that the premises had thentofore, by good and sufficient conveyances and assurances in the law, and by Sir Richard's direction, been conveyed to the said Frith, and one Gough who was then dead, and their heirs, in trust for Sir Richard and his heirs : but such former conveyance could never be found. In 1687, Sir Richard Astley died, leaving the respondent his only son, an infant of about a month old; but by his will he devised the premises in question, among other estates, to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palmer v Leycester
...(2 Ves. sen. 170), Morgan v. Morgan (2 Dick. 643), Signal v. Breretm (1 Dick. 278), Bedford v. Coke (1 Dick. 178), Bradshaw v. Astlei/ (4 Bro. P. C. 505), Judd v. Evans (6 T. R. 399), Hollipp v. Otway (2 Saund. 107), Bann v. Dalzell (3 Carr. & Payne, 376), O'Dmel v. Brawn (1 Ba. & Be. 262).......
-
Ex parte Lynch and Another
...with his money; likewise in cases of arrears of annuities, and old mortgages. Bradshaw v. Ashley, 2 April 1717.'"' Dom. Proc. S. C. 4 Bro. P. C. 505, Tom. ed. 1 MADD. 16. EX PABTE LYNCH 7 Court, to prohibit him from further proceedings, or holding plea before him in any manner touching or c......