Johnson v Compton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1831 |
| Date | 01 January 1831 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 58 E.R. 15
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Annuity. Bankrupt. Defendant. Evidence. Debtor and Creditor.
[37] johnson v. compton. nok. 25, Dec. 23, 1830; Jan. 1, 1831. Annuity. Bankrupt. Defendant. Evidence. Debtor awl Creditor. An annuity granted by A. to B. was secured by a covenant by C., a surety, to pay the annuity in case A. made default, and by a judgment for 2100 entered up against A. and C. The annuity remained unpaid from January 1823, A. having left the country, and in February 1824 C. became bankrupt, and afterwards obtained his certificate. C. having died, B. filed a bill to have the arrears of the annuity paid out of his real and personal estates. Held, that neither the value of the annuity nor the sum due on the judgment was provable under C.'s commission, and, therefore, that his certificate was not a bar to the Plaintiff's demand. What is sufficient primd facie evidence that a Defendant is out of the jurisdiction. The Court will not decree a specialty debt to he paid out of the deceased's real estates, unless the creditor sues on behalf of himself and all other the specialty creditors: but leave will be given to amend the bill at the hearing. By an indenture of the 4th of July 1821, and made between Charles Struth, of the first part, Peter Alfred Compton, of the second part, and the Plaintiff', of the third part, Struth, in consideration of 1050 paid to him by the Plaintiff, granted to the Plaintiff an annuity of 150 during the life of Struth, to be paid by four equal quarterly payments, on the 4th of October, the 4th of January, the 4th of April and the 4th of July, together with a proportionable part up to the day of the decease of Struth; and after reciting that it was agreed, on the treaty for the purchase of the annuity, between the parties to the indenture that Compton should enter into the covenant hereinafter stated, for better securing the payment of the annuity, together with any additional premium or premiums of insurance, which, if any, should be occasioned by reason of Struth going into parts beyond the seas or otherwise as therein mentioned, it was further witnessed that, in pursuance of the said agreement, Compton did thereby, for himself, his heirs, executors and administrators, covenant, with the Plaintiff, that in case Struth, hia heirs, executors or administrators should not pay the annuity to the Plaintiff, and such proportionable part thereof up to the day of the decease of Struth, on the days, and in the manner before mentioned, or in case Struth, his heirs, executors or administrators should not pay all such additional premium or premiums of insurance that should be in-[38]-curred by reason of Struth so going into parts beyond the seas or otherwise, then Compton, his heirs, executors or administrators should, from time to time, and at all times thereafter, during the life of Struth, from and immediately after default should be made as aforesaid, and without any demand made upon or notice given to him or them thereof, pay the annuity to the Plaintiff, and all arrears thereof, and such proportionable part thereof as aforesaid, and all such additional premiums of insurance as should be incurred as aforesaid : and the indenture contained a proviso for the repurchase of the annuity by Struth and Compton, or either of them, upon the terms therein mentioned. 16 JOHNSON V. COMPTON 4 SIM. 39. A warrant of attorney to enter up judgment was, at the same time, executed by Struth and Compton, for 2100: and judgment was soon afterwards entered up against them in the Court of King's Bench. Struth paid the annuity to the Plaintiff for a short time after the grant of the annuity; but, in 1823, he left this kingdom, and had ever since remained abroad; and no payment had been made to the Plaintiff in respect of the annuity since the quarterly payment which became due on the 4th of January 1823. Compton, by his will, dated the 16th of July 1824, devised and bequeathed unto William Norris, Joseph Baker and Orton Smith all his real and personal property upon trust to sell and dispose of the same as therein mentioned, and to place out the proceeds at interest, upon certain trusts for the benefit of his wife, Amelia Compton, and all his children who should be living at his decease ; and the testator appointed his wife, and Norris, Baker and Smith, executors of his will. [39] The testator...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Davies and Others v Kennedy and Others
...v. Delacour 1 Dr. & War. 591. The Dean and Chapter of Ely v. BlissENR 5 Beav. 574, 582. Ex parte Gardom 15 Ves. 286. Johnston v. ComptonENR 4 Sim. 37. Parslow v. DearloveENR 4 East, 438. Bamford v. Burrell 2 Bos. & Pull. 1. O'Flaherty v. M'DowellENR 6 H. L. C. 166. Emmanuel v. ConstableENR ......
-
Amott v Holden
...and, though there was a judgment to secure the annuity, the plaintiff was not an annuity creditor of the surety; Johnson v. Cotnpton (4 Sim. 37). So also, where the grantor and surety covenanted jointly and severally for the payment of the annuity, it was held that the grantee could not pro......
-
Busby v Seymour
...Russ. 188. Vickers v. Oliver 1 Y. & Col. 219. Lyster v. BurroughsUNK 1 Dr. & Wal. 149. Vickers v. Olivers Ubi supra. Johnston v. ComptonENR 4 Sim. 37. SimonENR Johnston v. Compton, 4 Sim. 37. CASES IN EQUITY. 433 BUSBY v. SEYMOUR. PATRICK SANDFORD and Margaret his wife filed a bill in July ......