Lord Leigh v Lord Ashburton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 1848 |
| Date | 06 November 1848 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 899
ROLLS COURT
[470] lord lecgh v. lord ashburton. Nov. 4, 6, 1848. A power of sale and exchange was given to trustees, with the consent of the tenant for life. Judgments were entered up against the tenant for life. Whether the trustees could sell without the concurrence of the judgment creditors, qucere. The Court will not determine, on demurrer, a point which cannot conveniently be decided by that form of proceeding. This was a demurrer to a bill for specific performance. The bill stated that, in 1828, large estates had been settled on the Duke of Buckingham for life, with remainders over, and power was given to the tenant for life when in possession to grant leases for twenty-one years. The settlement also contained a power to the trustees and the survivors, with the consent of the tenant far life, to sell or exchange the property, for such price or equivalent as to the trustees should be deemed reasonable, and for that purpose, and with such consent, to revoke the old and declare new uses. Full powers were vested in the trustees to give receipts for the purchase-money. The bill stated, that on the 27th of May 1847, the life-estate of the Duke of Buckingham had been conveyed in trust for the Marquis of Chandos. That, both prior and subsequent to the said 27th of May 1847, judgments were and had been entered up in Her Majesty's Superior Courts at Westminster, to a very large amount, against the Duke of Buckingham, and judgments had, in like manner since the said 27th of May 1847, been entered up, in the said Courts, against the Marquis of Chandos, and that all such judgments had been duly registered. That the Plaintiff, as surviving trustee of the settlement of 1828, with the consent of the duke and marquis, had entered into a written contract with Lord [471] Ashburton, to sell part of the estates for 29,993; but that the Defendant alleged, that, by reason of the judgments, he could not safely complete the said contracts, until it had been ascertained, by a decision of this Court, whether the power of sale was destroyed, affected, or incapable of being exercised by the Plaintiff, under the circumstances above mentioned. The Plaintiff insisted, that he was able to make a good title to the said premises agreed to be sold, and that the agreement ought to be specifically performed. The bill was filed against Lord Ashburton alone, arid prayed that it might be declared, that the power of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hurst v Hurst
...them by the testator. (See Whitmarsh v. Robertsm, I Coll. 570; 4 Beavan, 26; and 1 Y. & Coll. (C. C.) 715; Lord Leigh v. Lord Ashbwtim, 11 Beav. 470.) The case of Jiadham v. Mee (7 Bing. 695; 1 Myl. & K. 32) has been dissented from, Jones v. Winwood (10 Sim. 150 ; 3 Mee. & Wels. 653). Here ......
-
Biddulph v Lord Camoys
...that the evidence of the witnesses cannot be given vivd voce. In the case of John Hammond, I think there is not sufficient evidence. The 11BEAV.470. KNOTT V. COITEE 433 order muat be in the form in Attorney-General v. Hay (2 Hare, 518 ; 3 Hare, 335; 6 Beav. 335). [470] abstract of order.-Or......