Metcalfe v The Archbishop of York
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 June 1833 |
| Date | 17 June 1833 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 58 E.R. 577
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. affirmes, 1 My. & Cr. 547; 40 E. R. 485; 6 L. J. Ch. (N. S.) 65. See Montagu v. Earl of Sandwich, 1886, 32 Ch. D. 539; Taiby v. Official Receiver, 1888, 13 App. Cas. 548; In re Mirams[1901], 1 Q. B. 596; Western Wagon, &c., Company v. West [1892], 1 Ch. 275.
Covenant. Charge on Benefice.
[224] metcalfe v. the archbishop of york. June 13, 17, 1833. |f|3U-lA- to g [S. C. affirmed, 1 My. & Cr. 547 ; 40 E. R. 485 ; 6 L. J. Ch. (N. S.) 65. See Montagu-v. Earl of Sandwich, 1886, 32 Ch. D. 539; Tailby v. Official Meceiver, 1888, 13 App. Cas. 548 ; In re Mirams [1891], 1 Q. B. 596; Western Wagm,, &c., Company v. Wext [1892], 1 Ch. 275.] Covenant. Charge mi Benefice. A vicar, whilst the 13 Elizabeth, c. 20, against charging benefices, was repealed, charged his living with an annuity, and covenanted, if he should exchange his living, V.-C. in.-19 578 METCALFE V. ARCHBISHOP OF YOKK 6 SIM. 225. to secure the annuity by charging and demising the new living, and that, in the meantime, it should be charged with the annuity. He afterwards exchanged his living, but did not execute any deed until after the revival of the 13 Elizabeth. Held, that the covenant was a subsisting charge on the new living, and a receiver was appointed to provide for the annuity. By an indenture of the 9th of August 1811, the Rev. William Warrington, the then incumbent of the Vicarage of St. Lawrence Jewry, with the Rectory of St. Mary Magdalen in the City of London annexed, in consideration of £900, granted an annuity of £150, during his life, to James Cottle, charged, during his incumbency, on the vicarage and rectory ; and, for better securing the annuity, Warrington demised the vicarage and rectory to a trustee for ninety-nine years, if Warrington should so long live, and covenanted with Cottle, for the payment of the annuity, and, moreover, that in case he should, at any time or times thereafter, be preferred or promoted to any other ecclesiastical benefice or benefices, in lieu of or in exchange for, or in addition to his then vicarage and rectory, or his church or ecclesiastical preferment for the time being, he would, at his own costs and charges, within three calendar months next after such events should happen, fully charge the same benefice or benefices with payment of the annuity of £150, and also demise the same to a trustee of Cottle's nomination, in the same manner, in all respects, as the vicarage and rectory were thereby charged and demised for securing the annuity ; and that, in the meantime, the same benefice and benefices should be charged and charyeable with and liable to the payment of the annuity of £15Q ; and, as a further security for the [225] annuity, Warrington executed a warrant of attorney, dated the same 9th of August 1811, on which a judgment for £1800 and costs was shortly afterwards entered up and docketed, and memorials of the securities were duly enrolled in the Court of Chancery. By an indenture of the 12th of January 1813, Cottle, in consideration of £800, assigned the annuity and all the remedies for recovering the same to the Plaintiff, and it was declared that the trustees should stand possessed of the residue of the term of ninety-nine years, in trust for scouring the punctual payment of the annuity to the Plaintiff. The annuity being in arrear, the Plaintiff, in Michaelmas term 1813, sequestered the benefices under the judgment. In November 1814, and whilst the sequestration was in force, Warrington exchanged those benefices for the Vicarage of Leake, in the North Riding of Yorkshire; and, by an indenture of the 10th of November 1818,(1) after reciting the deed of August 1811 and the covenant for charging any benefice to be taken in exchange, he, in pursuance of the covenant, charged the Vicarage of Leake with the annuity and the arrears thereof, and empowered the Plaintiff to distrain upon it, in the same manner as if it had been originally charged with the annuity, and he demised the vicarage to a trustee, for ninety-nine years, for better securing the annuity. A memorial of this indenture was enrolled in the Court of Chancery; and, on the 30th of November 1818, another memorial of it [226] was registered in the North Riding of Yorkshire. In and after April 1815 the Plaintiff caused several sequestrations to be issued under the judgment against the Vicarage of Leake. On the 9th of August 1832 Warrington executed a warrant of attorney, on which a judgment was, on the following day, entered up against him at the suit of the Defendants Meggison, Pringle & Manisty, for £500 and coats. That judgment was docketed and registered in the North Riding of Yorkshire, and a sequestration was issued under it against the Vicarage of Leake; and on the 7th of November 1832 Meggison, Pringle & Manisty obtained a rule of the Court of King's Bench, calling on the Plaintiff to shew cause why the sequestrations issued by him should not be suspended, and their sequestration be put in force as from the 10th of August then last, and why it should not be referred to the Master to ascertain what sums the Plaintiff had levied under his sequestrations, and, if he had levied more than £1800 why should he not refund the surplus, and pay to them the amount...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cleary v Fitzgerald
...1 Coll. 670. Stackhouse v. Countess of JerseyENR 1 J. & H. 721. Cory v. EyreUNK 1 D. J. & S. 149, 167. Metcalfe v. The Archishop of YorkENR 6 Sim. 224. Creed v. Carey 7 Ir. Ch. R. 295. Marshall v. HolroydENR 10 H. L. C. 191. Re WardENR 31 Beav. 1. Edwards v. M'Leay G. Cooper's R. 308. Sanke......
-
A P Holroyd and Others v J G Marshall and Others
...not an instance where, as here, money paid to creditors has been ordered to be paid back. The case of Metcalfe v. The Archbishop of York (6 Sim. 224; 1 Myl. and Cr. 547) is [207] really strong for the Respondents, for there the person in whose favour the equitable charge was made actually d......
-
A P Holroyd and Others v J G Marshall and Others
...Wms. 191); and the interest, when it comes into existence, will at once become subject to the contract; Metcalfe v. The Archbishop of York (6 Sim. 224 ; 1 Myl. & Cr. 547) Newlands v. Paynter (4 Myl. & C. 408); and the [699] same rule prevails at law; Cheddell v. Galsworthy (6 C. B. Eep. (N.......
-
Malcolm v Scott and Others
...funds, the fruits of an under-[38}-taking already commenced; Curtis v. Auber (1 J. & W. 526), Metcalfe v. The Archbishop of York (6 Sim. 224 ; S. C. 1 Myl. & Cr. 547), Langtm v. Norton (1 Hare, 549). [the lord chancellor. This appears to me to be peculiarly a matter of law, and not a questi......