Lord Irnham against Child and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1781 |
| Date | 01 January 1781 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 28 E.R. 1006
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Explained, Townshend v. Stangroom, 1801, 6 Ves. 332. See Jervis v. Berridge, 1873, L. R. 8 Ch. 359. Distinguished, In re Duke of Marlborough, 1894 2 Ch. 133.
Lord ienham against child and Others. [1781.] [Explained, Townshend v. Stangroom, 1801, 6 Ves. 332. See Jervis v. Berridge, 1873, L. R. 8 Ch. 359. Distinguished, In re Duke of Marlborough, [1894] 2 Ch. 133.] [S. C. 2 Dick. 554.]-Grant of annuity. A bill filed to redeem, suggesting that it was part of the agreement, that it should be redeemable, but the agreement left out of the deed, on the idea that if inserted the transaction would be usuripus. Parol evidence offered to this, but not admitted to contradict the deed, not being charged to have been omitted by fraud. (See per Lord Eldon, C., on this case, &c., in M. Townshend v. Stangroom, 6 Ves. 332, 3, upon the points in this case. Vide similar decisions in Lord Portmore v. Morris, 2 Bro, C. C. 219 (with 1 EL Black, p. 664, note); Hare v. Shearwood, 3 Bro. C. C. 168, and 1 Ves. jun. 241; Rosamond v. Lord Melsington, in the note to 3 Ves. p. 40 and Rich v. Jackson, 4 Bro. C. C. 513, and 6 Ves. 334, note, where the judgment is given much more fully. See also Woollam v. Hearn, 7 Ves. 211. See also Sugden's Law of Vendors and Purchasers (5th edit.), p. 150. &c.; and see in Shelburne v. Inchiquin, 1 Bro. C. C. 350. See also in 6 Ves. 332, 3, &c. As to mistake, &c., see M. Townshend v. Stangroom, 6 Ves. 328; and Durant t. Durant, 1 Cox, Ch. Ca. 58.) Lord Irnham treated for an annuity with Child, who (though unknown to Lord Irnham) was an agent for H. Lawes Luttrel, his Lordship's eldest son. (Note : This, and all other cases in these reports, under the Annuity Act, must be considered as referable to the act of the 17 Geo. 3, c. 26, only. By the late act, 53 Geo. 3, c. 141, the provisions made by the first-mentioned act have been repealed, and other provisions substituted in lieu thereof. In all cases, therefore, subsequent to the above act of the 53 Geo. 3, reference must be to that act alone.) Upon settling the terms it was agreed that the annuity should be redeemable; but, both parties supposing that this appearing upon the face of the transaction would make it usurious, it was agreed that the grant from Lord Irnham to Child should not have in it a clause of redemption. It was accordingly drawn and executed without such clause.-The annuity had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tidd v Lister Bassill v Lister
...interest, nor can extrinsic circumstances be permitted to affect or control the legal import of the instrument; Irnham v. Child (1 Bro. C. C. 92), Squire v. Campbell (1 Myl. & Or. 459), Marriage v. Marriage (1 C. B. Rep. 761). The annuity assigned is precisely the same as that originally gr......
-
Davies v Otty
...Y. & Jer. 163); Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3, s. 4); Bartlett v. Pickerngitt (1 Cox, 15, and 1 Eden, 515); Lard Irnham v. Child (1 Bro. C. C. 92); Cawley v. Poole (1 Hem. & Mil. 50). Mr. Baggallay, in reply. Feb. 15. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly], Upon considering this ca......
-
Charles Edward Porter and another v Robert Stokes (Personal Representative of the Estate of Walter Edward Stokes, deceased)
...by reference to Private Rights of Way by Smith, Francis, Jessel and Shaw (2012), Fowler v Fowler (1859) 4 De G & J 250, Irnham v Child (1781) 1 Bro C C 92), Murray v Parker (1864) 19 Beav 305, Crane v Hegeman-Harris Co. Inc [1939] 1 All ER 662, 664 and Earl v Hector Whaling Ltd [1961] 1 L......
-
Coates v Kenna
...242. Sweet v. SouthcoteENR 2 Bro. C. C. 66. Hammond v. HammondENR 19 Beav. 29. Payne v. Collier 1 Ves. Jun. 170. Lord Irnham v. ChildENR 1 Bro. C. C. 92. Warrick v. WarrickENR 3 Atk. 291. Bold v. Hutchinson 5 De G. M. — G. 558. Mignan v. PerryENR 31 Beav. 215. Kenney v. Brown 3 Ridgw. P. C.......