Mellor v Lee
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 February 1742 |
| Date | 05 February 1742 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 698
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Bulwer v. Astley, 1843. 1 Ph. 435.
Case 300.-spines versus bobins and cope ; and by a Cross Bill eobins versus spinks, trent and Others, January 27, 1742. S. by a codicil without any date gives 1000 a-piece to Mary and Sarah Robins, and if either die before their legacies are paid, the whole to the survivor; each of the legacies directed to remain in the executor's hands till legatees attain 21. S. afterwards enters into two bonds, one to Mary, and another to Sarah, reciting he was desirous to provide for their maintenance; each of the bonds were in the penalty of 4000 for securing 2000, provided they marry in his life-time with his consent, or in case they survive him. As the principal sums given by the bonds are upon two contingencies, they ought not to be considered as a satisfaction of the legacies under the codicil. (As to the doctrine of Satisfaction, see Bellasis v. Uthivatt, ante, 1 vol. 426, note.) The original bill was brought by the plaintiff as a residuary legatee of the late Mr. Spinks to have it placed out for his benefit by the defendants the executors of the will, 2 ATK. 492. SPINKS 1). ROBINS 697 and was merely of course ; but the material question arose on the cross bill, and upon this case. Mr. Spinks the testator by a codicil without any date gives 1000 a-piece to the plaintiffs Mary and Sarah Robins (the daughters of Mrs. Robins a widow, with whom he lived for several years till the time of his death), and if either of them should die before their legacies were paid, then he gave the whole to the survivor, and directed that each of the said two legacies should remain in the hands of his executors, till they attained the age of 21. He afterwards enters into two bonds, one to Mary and the other to Sarah Robins, reciting that for divers good causes and considerations he is desirous to make a provision for and towards their maintenance. [492] Each of the bonds were in the penalty of 4000 for securing 2000 a-piece to them, provided they should marry in his life-time, with his consent, or in case they should survive him. Mr. Attorney General, counsel for the defendants, in the cross cause insisted, that the bonds are to be considered as given in satisfaction of the legacies under the codicil. And for this purpose, cited Tapper versus Chalcroft, 11 Feb. 1739, before Lord Hardwicke ; where it was held, that a legacy to a daughter, under the will of her father...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
George James Marquis of Cholmondeley, and The Honorable Ann Sey-Mour Damer -Appellants; Robert Cotton St. John Lord Clinton, and Others, - Respondents
...he said the doctrine had been fluctuating, and cited Pearson v. PvMey, 1 Ch. Ca, 102., and 3 P. W. [27] 287. note B; Meller v. Lees, 2 Atk. 494.; Aggas v. Pickerell, 3 Atk. 225.; Acherley v. Roe, 5 Ves. 565.; Harmood v. Oglander, 6 Ves. jun. 199.; and the appeal against the judgment, 8 Ves.......
-
Williams v owen
...the original transaction a iiona Jide sale with a contract for repurchase, or was it a mortgage under the form of a sale? In Melhr v. Lees (2 Atk. 494), [307] Lord Hardwicke puts the case thus : " As to the contract, whether it is a transaction that is in its nature a mortgage, or a defeasi......
-
Bulwer v Astley
...to be characteristic of a loan as distinguished from a sale : Floi/er v. Sheranl (Amb. 18), Lawlei/ v. Hooper (3 Atk, 278), Mellw v. Lees (2 Atk. 494): thirdly, there is the warrant of attorney to confess judgment for double the amount of the sum advanced, which shews still more conclusivel......
-
Davis v Thomas
...A conveyance with a right of repurchase is in the nature of a mortgage : it is a mere security for a sum of money (Mellor v. Lcru, 2 Atk., 494 ; Floi/er v. Luvington, 1 P. W., 268 ; Willett v. jyinnett, 1 Vern., 488). The right of repurchase must have been in the contemplation of the partie......