Lea v Hinton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 1854 |
| Date | 14 November 1854 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 43 E.R. 1090
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. 19 Beav. 324. See Knox v. Turner, 1870, L. R. 9 Eq. 164. Discussed, Preston v. Neele, 1879, 12 Ch. D. 760.
1090 LEA V. HINTON S DB Q. M. ft O. 823. [823] lea v. hinton. Before the Lords Justices. Nov. 14, 1854. [S. C. 19 Beav. 324. See Knox v. Turner, 1870, L. R. 9 Eq. 164. Discussed, Preston v. Neele, 1879, 12 Ch. D. 760.] One of the makers of a joint and several promissory note, who was a surety for the other, effected an insurance on the life of the latter, with his privity and concurrence, for an amount equal to that secured by the note. The principal died, having appointed the surety his executor, and the surety received the insurance money. Held, that to the extent to which it was not required for indemnifying the surety, it ought to be applied in payment of the debt. This was an appeal from a decision of the Master of the Rolls on an adjourned summons, in an administration suit, which came on to be heard with the cause 011 further directions. The principal question was, whether the Defendant, who was the executor of the testator in the cause, ought to be debited with 300, received by him in respect of a policy which he had effected in November 1848 on the testator's life. The case is reported below in the 19th Volume of Mr. Beavan's Reports (page 324), where the facts are stated. The mud wee examination which took place below had not been taken down, and application was made to [824] their Lordships for a viwl voce examination before themselves, but it was arranged that the case should be argued in the first instance on the evidence before the Court. On this evidence it appeared, that the Defendant was, on many occasions, the solicitor of the testator, and on very intimate terms with him, and that the testator was engaged to be married to the Defendant's daughter. It also appeared that the Defendant had joined the testator as his surety in a promissory note for 300 to a Mr. Bevan. The Defendant claimed to be a creditor of the testator, but this was disputed, the testator having taken a son of the Defendant's as apprentice to him, at a premium, in his profession of surgeon and apothecary, and having attended professionally members of the Defendant's family; and there being a conflict of testimony as to the understanding respecting these attendances, as well as on the other facts connected with the accounts between the testator and the Defendant. The Defendant stated upon his deposition, that he was the agent to the office in which the insurance was effected; that different forms of proposals were used when a party insured his own life and when a third party insured a life, but that the same printed form was applicable to all cases, only filled up in a different manner; that his recollection was not distinct on the matter, but that his impression was, that the policy was effected by him for money owed by the testator to him; that the testator never gave him instructions to insure his (the testator's) life, but that the testator signed the proposal for insurance, which was necessary, whether a person was insuring his own life, or another was insuring it. That the premium was paid by way of debit in the Defendant's account with the insurance company, and that there was no other entry of the premium on this insurance except in the Defendant's account book with the insurance office; that the 300 was advanced by Bevan on the 21st of October 1848, [825] but the Defendant could not say whether he had lent Mr. Lea any money in that month, and that the proposal for insuring the testator's life was in the handwriting of the Defendant and his son. The Defendant said he could not swear that the insurance was not for 300 advanced by Mr. Bevan. He admitted that he had received the 300 secured by the policy from the insurance office, and had paid the debt to Mr. Bevan out of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphy and another v Murphy and Others
...3 All ER 252, [1940] 2 KB 388, CA. Griffiths v Fleming [1909] 1 KB 805, [1908–10] All ER Rep 760, CA. Lea v Hinton (1854) 5 De GM & G 823, 43 ER 1090. McKerrell, Re [1912] 2 Ch Powell v Osbourne[1993] 1 FCR 797, [1993] 1 FLR 1001, CA. Reed v Royal Exchange Assurance Co (1795) Peake (Add Cas......
-
L v M (A Child)
...Assured. And it is trite law that one person may have an insurable interest not only in his own life, but also in the life of another – Lea v Hinton (1854) 5 De Gex, MacNaghten & Gordon 823, 43 ER 1090, Branford v Saunders (1877) 25 WR 650. In particular, a wife has long been presumed to ha......
-
Freme v Brade
...Trulock. The Plaintiff appealed, Mr. Holt, Mr. Bilton, and Mr. Neale of the Common Law Bar, for the Appellant, referred to Lea v. Hinton (19 Beav. 324; 5 De G. M. & G. 823), Drysdale v. Piggott (22 Beav. 238), S. C. on appeal (4 Week. Eep. 772; 2 Jur. N. S. 1078), and Gottlieb v. Crannh (4 ......
-
Drysdale v Piggott
...Reid (2 Hare, 247); Norland v. Isaacs (20 Beav. 387); Ex parte Andrews (1 Madd. 573); Brown v. Freeman (4 De G. & Sm. 444); Lea v. Hinton (19 Beav. 324; 5 De G. M. & G. 823); Hart v. Clarke (6 De G. M. & G. 232; S. C. on appeal, 6 H. of L. Ca., 663); Clack v. Holland (19 Beav. 262); Roberts......