Knight v Bowyer
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 August 1859 |
| Date | 01 August 1859 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 44 E.R. 1053
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. Beav. 27 L. J. Ch. 521; 4 Jur. (N. S.), 569; 6 W. R. 565. See Bagnall v. Carlton, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 400. Followed, Hunt v Luck [1901], 1 Ch. 45.
[421] knight v. bowyer. Before the Lords Justices. Feb. 19, 20, 22, afS./tfw/ = ^3 May 7, 1858. [S. C. 23 Beav. 27 L. J. Ch. 521 ; 4 Jur. (N. S.), 569 ; 6 W. R. 565. See Bagnall v. Carlton, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 400. Followed, Hunt v. Luck [1901], 1 Ch. 45.] Sir G. B. granted to six persons annuities, payable out of his life interest in the R. estate. He then executed a deed, called a receivership deed, to which the six annuitants and B. and R. were parties, by which he appointed B. and R. receivers of the rents; and it was declared that they should hold the rents in trust to pay the annuities, and then to pay the surplus to Sir G. B. or his assigns. The receivers accepted the trust. By another deed Sir G. B. conveyed his life-estate to a trustee on trusts for securing the six annuities, and subject thereto in trust for himself. He afterwards granted annuities to three other persons, and by a deed called a deed of direction, to which the three annuitants were parties, he directed the receivers and the trustee to pay the three annuitants out of the rents. Notice of this deed was immediately served on the receivers and the trustee. Held, by the Lord Justice Turner, affirming the decision of the Master of the Rolls (dubitante the Lord Justice Knight Bruce),- 1. That the deed of direction made the receivers and the trustee express trustees for the three annuitants, subject to the rights of the six annuitants. 2. That in cases of express trust the Statute of Limitations is no bar to the demand of a cextui que trust, though the other cestui que trusts have for more than twenty years received from the trustee the whole of the rents to the exclusion of the claimant. Whether the rules as to refusing relief in cases of stale demands apply in cases of express trust. Queere. One of the three annuities, and a share of another of them, were, pending a suit in which the title to them was in litigation, purchased in the name of T. T., by the deed transferring them to him, covenanted to indemnify the vendors against past and future costs ; and at the same time he executed a declaration of trust, shewing that the purchase was made principally on behalf of certain solicitors who acted in the suit for the parties entitled to the residue of the three annuities, but were not the solicitors of the vendors. Held, by the Lord Justice Turner, affirming the decision of the Master of the Rolls, that the purchase was not affected by the laws relating to champerty and maintenance, and that even assuming it to be voidable aa between the vendors and purchasers, the objection could not be taken by third parties. The persons entitled to the three annuities offered by their bill to redeem the six prior annuitants. Held, by the Lord Justice Turner, affirming the decision of the Master of the Rolls (dubitante the Lord Justice Knight Bruce), that it is in the discretion of the Court whether it will enforce against a Plaintiff an offer made by his bill, and that under the circumstances of the present case, the offer ought not to be so enforced. Held, also, by the Lord Justice Turner, that there is no rule that an annuitant whose annuity is repurchasable, and whose title is not impeached, cannot be sued in equity, except for the purpose of redemption. H. B. waa entitled for life to a charge on the R. estate, subject to which the charge belonged to Sir G. B. absolutely. H. B. purchased for value the reversionary interest of Sir G. B. in the charge, with knowledge that the rents of the estate were not received by Sir G. B., but by B. as a trustee for some persons to whom 1054 KNIGHT V. BOWYER 2DBO.&J. 422. Sir G. B. had granted annuities. Held, by the Lord Justice Turner, affirming the decision of the Master of the Rolls (dubitante the Lord Justice Knight Bruce), that H. B., knowing that the rents were received by B., was bound to inquire on whose behalf he received them, and having made no inquiry must be deemed to have had notice of the rights of the persons for whom B. was a trustee; and that, therefore, the executor of H. B. after her death, could not during the life of Sir G. B. set up the charge against the three annuitants. This case came before the Court on two petitions of appeal against a decree of the Master of the Rolls; one presented by the Defendant, Mr. George Bowyer, and the other by the Defendant, Edward Kynaston Bridger. The general outline of the case, which [422] involved various points, may be thus stated. The Plaintiffs in the suit, and some of the Defendants, were interested in three several annuities, which were granted by the Defendant, Sir George Bowyer, by three several indentures, dated the 30th of August 1814, and which were, by those indentures, charged upon the Defendant Sir George Bowyer's life interest in an estate called the Radley estate. The other Defendants were variously interested in a mortgage upon the Radley estate, in a sum charged upon that estate for portions, in a judgment entered up against the Defendant, Sir George Bowyer, by Alexander Donovan, since deceased, for securing an annuity granted to him, and in six several other annuities, which were granted by the Defendant Sir George Bowyer by six several indentures, dated the 25th of June 1814, and which were, by those indentures, also charged upon the Defendant Sir George Bowyer's life interest in the Radley estate. The bill was filed for the purpose of rendering the life-estate of Sir George Bowyer available for the payment of the annuities in which the Plaintiffs were interested, which were called "the three annuities," and for establishing the priority of those annuities over some of the other charges on the life-estate, or, failing that case, for redeeming those other charges. It was never disputed that the mortgage and the charge for portions had priority over the three annuities, nor was it on the appeal disputed that the six annuitants had priority over the Plaintiffs in respect of the three annuities ; but the Plaintiffs, by their bill, claimed [423J to rank pan pasmi with the six annuitants, and it was not until shortly before the hearing of the cause that this claim was abandoned. The Defendant Mr. George Bowyer, who claimed to be entitled to the mortgage and the charge for portions, and to be entitled also to the six annuities, subject to mortgages which he had made of them in favour of some of the other Defendants, had been, for some time before the institution of the suit, in possession or receipt of the rents and profits of the estate ; and it appeared that the Defendant Edward Kynaston Bridger, who had an interest as mortgagee in the six annuities, or some of them, had also many years previously been in receipt of the rents of the estate for some short period of time. The decree directed an account against these two Defendants; and they, thereupon, presented the appeals in question. It will now be necessary to state more particularly the facts and circumstances upon which the particular questions respectively depended. The decree treated the three annuities as subsisting charges, and gave the Plaintiffs relief on that footing. The Appellants contended that they were barred by the Statute of Limitations, 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27. The facts of the case as to this part of the question will be found in the report of the ease, 23 Beav. 610, and were, so far as is material, as follows :- In and prior to the year 1814, Sir George Bowyer was equitable tenant for life, without impeachment of waste, of the Radley eatate, subject to four incumbrances: first, a mortgage for 9560, which was vested in Henrietta Lady Bowyer for life, with the absolute interest in reversion to Sir George Bowyer; secondly, 7125 due to the four brothers and sisters of Sir George Bowyer (being the residue of a charge of 10,000 upon the estate for portions of the younger children of the prior owner [424] of the estate); thirdly, an annuity of 30, which subsequently determined; and, fourthly, another annuity of 250, also since determined. While Sir George Bowyer was thus entitled, a person named Donovan obtained judgment against him in respect of securities for three annuities, the consideration for which was 7758. Judgment was entered up in March 1814. On the 25th of June 1814, Sir George Bowyer, in consideration of 15,994, granted the six annuities to six persons, and afterwards executed a deed of the 28th 2DBG. ft J.UK. KNIGHT V. BOWYER 1055 of June 1814, made between Sir George Bowyer of the first part, the six annuitants of the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh parts respectively, and Ballachy and Ealfe of the eighth part (being a deed which in the argument was called " the receivership deed "). It recited, first of all, the deeds granting the annuities; it then recited an agreement that it should be lawful for Sir George Bowyer, by mortgage or grant of annuities, to raise any further sum not exceeding in the whole (including the considerations for the six annuities already granted, and including, also, any judgments which, at the time of such further sum being raised, might be available against the said hereditaments) the sum of 20,000; and that such further grantees of annuities, or mortgagees, should stand and be entitled pari passu with the six. Then there was a recital of the six annuities; and the deed witnessed, that, in consideration of the sums, amounting to 15,994, which had been paid for the purchase of the six annuities, Sir George Bowyer appointed Ballachy and Ralfe his agents to receive the rents of the estate, and to take all lawful steps, by action, distress, or otherwise, to obtain payment thereof; and he directed the tenants to pay to Ballachy and Ralfe, and declared that their receipts should be good discharges to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patel and Others v Shah and Others
...authorities. For reasons stated later in this judgment, it is not necessary to analyse the cases in the same detail. Knight v Bowyer (1858) 2 De G & J 421, at 443, was cited for the proposition that the doctrine of laches and delay did not apply to an express trust, save possibly where ther......