Lloyd v Baldwin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 December 1748 |
| Date | 09 December 1748 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 964
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
lloyd v. baldwin, Dec. 9, 1748. Purchaser or mortgagee under a decree for sale or mortgage and payment of creditors, answerable for the application of the money, if not paid into court. (See the circumstances, Supplement, p. 101.) So also if the debts are specified in a schedule, &c., by the will. A decree was made, and directions for a sale or mortgage, with approbation of the master ; and that the money raised thereby should be applied for payment of the debts : and a report was made ascertaining these very debts by schedule. Instead of applying as the decree directed, it was mortgaged to the defendant; but upon recital of the bill and all the proceedings thereon, the money was paid to a trustee named by the defendant, upon trust to pay it over to the creditors; with covenant by the trustee to the defendant. For whom it was now insisted, that the estate was not liable in his hands to the demands of the plaintiffs : but that supposing it liable, it was only in default of payment by the trustee ; against whom the plaintiffs should be first turned. Lord Chancellor. If the court should not hold this estate in the hands of the mortgagee to be liable, it would be vain hereafter to make such a decree for the payment of debts ; for then any person might afterward purchase with full notice, pay the money, and the creditors go without any satisfaction. It is true, it is an established doctrine, that on a trust or devise for payment of debts in general, without a specification of the debts in a schedule, a purchaser would be indemnified, and not obliged to see to the application of the money, or look after the creditors ; which is in support of the trust, that the estate may be sold. But if there is such a specification or schedule, a purchaser or mortgagee is bound to see the application of the purchase-money. So where there is a decree, which reduces it to as much certainty as such a specification : for the pur- 1 VES. SEN. 174. CUNNINGHAM V. MOODY . " 965 chaser does not pay to the trustees in such cases ; but must see to the application, and take assignments from the creditors : otherwise the purchaser applies to the court, and that the money should be placed in the [174] bank, and not taken out without notice to him ; the reason of which is, that it is at his peril. As to the order in which he is liable ; they cannot, by what they have done among themselves, change the security...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v Lowater
...and therefore the conveyance was ineffectual. They also referred to Spalding v. Shalmer (1 Veru. 301), and Lloyd v. fialdu'in (1 Ves. sen. 173). Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Humphry, contra, for the owners of the Sandfield property. First, this will gives to the executor, by implication, a power to se......
-
John Wisdom v Joshua Robert Fennell
...Ves. 100. Meade v. Lord OrreryENR 3 Atk. 237. Taylor v. Stibbert 2 Ves. 437. Dunbar v. TredenwickUNK 2 B. & B. 319. Lloyd v. BaldwinENR 1 Ves. sen. 173. Dunch v. KentENR 1 Vern. 260. Mƒ€™Carthy v. DauntUNK 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 29. Cadwallader v. PriceUNKENR 11 Jur. 134; S. C. 16 M. & W. 603......
-
Supplemental Bill, between Richard Binks and Others, Plaintiffs; and Morris Lord Rokeby, Thomas Binks, and Ann his Wife, Frederick Turner, and Philip Macfarlan, Defendants
...scheduled creditors have no control. That is not a payment to them, nor would they be justified in giving a receipt. Lloyd v Baldwin (1 Ves. sen. 173), is in point. Sir Samuel Eomilly, contrh. Carter is an unwilling purchaser. I say that, because he refused to advance the exceptions. The Ma......
-
Blake v Blake
...appeared that there was a report finding that the person to whom the surplus was to be paid, was tenant in fee of the lands. (a) 1 Ves. sen. 173. (b) 2 Ball. & B. ...