Noble v Samuel Brett and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 January 1858 |
| Date | 13 January 1858 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 53 E.R. 450
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 27 L. J. Ch. 516; 4 Jur. (N. S.) 623; 6 W. R. 219. See Graham v. Drummond [1896], 1 Ch. 977. For subsequent proceedings, see 26 Beav. 233.
[499] noble v. sarah brett. noble v. samuel brett and others. Dee. 22, 1857; Jan. 13, 1858. [S. C. 27 L. J. Ch. 516; 4 Jur. (N. S.) 623; 6 W. R. 219. See Graham v. Drwmmand [1896], 1 Ch. 977. For subsequent proceedings, see 26 Beav. 233.] Executors, under directions contained in the will, transferred legacies into the joint names of themselves and the infant legatees, and the residuary legatee received the clear residue. Ten years afterwards, a debt, of which the executors had been previously ignorant, was established against the estate. The residuary legatee being insolvent, and the legacies being still in the joint names and under the control of the executors : Held, that such legacies were liable to the payment of the debt, both as against the legatees and a purchaser to whom one had assigned his legacy, whatever might be the rights of the legatees, or of the persons claiming under them, if any, as against the executors. A purchaser of a legacy, which has been paid or delivered, cannot be called on to refund or pay any portion of a debt subsequently established against the testator's estate. Semble. 24BEAV. 500. NOBLE V. BRETT 451 The testator, Samuel Hodges, died in 1846. By his will, he bequeathed to each of his two sons, Samuel and William Hodges, 2000, and he directed that, immediately after his decease, 4000 should be invested in the public funds for the purpose of securing the said legacies in the joint names of his executors and [500] Samuel and William Hodges. And he further directed that the said sum of 4000 should remain so invested until his said two sons should severally attain the age of twenty-five years, at which times he desired that the said sum of 2000 might be respectively paid to each of them by his executors. Until they attained twenty-five, he directed the interest to be paid to their mother, Sarah Bretfy for their maintenance. The testator bequeathed the residue of his estate to Sarah Brett, and he appointed as trustees and executors of his will, the Plaintiff William Noble, the Defendant Sarah Brett, and Defendant Joseph Davies. The executors and executrix proved the testator's will immediately on the testator's death, and they paid all the debts of which they had any knowledge, and invested the legacy of 4000 as follows, viz.:-One moiety thereof (after payment of the legacy duty thereon) was invested in the joint names of the executors, the executrix, and Samuel Hodges the legatee, in the purchase of 1872, 1 Is. 3d. 3 per cent, consolidated Bank annuities, and the other moiety thereof was, in like manner, invested in the names of the executors, the executrix and William Hodges. Such investment was made in the full belief that all the debts of the testator had been fully paid and satisfied. The clear residue, consisting apparently of a sum of 308, 8s. lid., was reeeived by the residuary legatee, Sarah Brett, in the year 1846. She also, under the trusts of the will, received the income of the two legacies for the maintenance of the testator's two sons. [501] In October 1855 Samuel Hodges, who had previously incumbered his legacy, sold and assigned it, out and out, to Mr. Hayley for 1500. A claim afterwards arose against the testator's estate for breaches of the covenants contained in a lease granted to the testator, and which expired at Michaelmas 1855 ; and in May 1859 Mr. Dyson brought an action at law against Noble and Sarah Brett (as executor and executrix of the testator) for those breaches of covenants. In July 1856 Noble, finding himself in a position of difficulty, filed a claim against Sarah Brett for the administration of the estate, and by the decree, made in November 1856, it was ordered that the following inquiries should be made: what debts, if any, of the testator Samuel Hodges remained unpaid, and whether there was any and what personal estate of the testator, and in whose hands, applicable for the payment of such debts of the testator, if any, as so remained unpaid. And the further consideration of the cause was adjourned. In December 1856, and before these inquiries had been prosecuted, Noble filed his bill in the second above-mentioned cause against the testator's two sons, the executrix and Hayley, which, after stating the above matters, prayed that the two sums of 1872, lls. 3d. 3 per centum consolidated Bank annuities might be secured in Court for the benefit of the persons entitled thereto, and that the rights and interests of all parties therein might be declared, having regard to the circumstances therein mentioned, and that, so far as might be necessary, the second suit might be deemed and taken as supplemental to the suit of Noble v. Brett. [502] An order was made on the 27th January 1857, in common law action, that all further proceedings therein should be stayed, on the terms that the Plaintiff Dyson should come in to prove his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sir Moses Montefiore-Appellant; Peter Browne, - Respondent
...final decree; and this is sanctioned b/ the decision of Lord Eldon in Gil- lespie v. Alexander (3 Russell, 130; see also Noble v. Brett, 24 Beav. 499). I am satisfied, under the circumstances of this case, that the fund may be looked upon as being still in court. The proceedings in the Incu......
-
Dilkes v Broadmead
...; Gillespie v. Alexander (3 Russ. 130); Greig v. Somerville (1 Russ. & M. 338); Davies v. Nicolsm (2 De G. & Jo. 693); Noble v. Brett (24 Beav. 499); March v. Russell (3 Myl. & Cr. 31); Biggins v. Shaw (1 Con. & Law. 400-403). The debt of the testator is the debt of a legatee who has receiv......
-
Halley v O'Brien and Woods
...R. 401. (1) L. R. 8 Ch. 747. (1) [1896] 1 Ch. 968. (2) 1 Atk. 462. (3) 3 Atk. 235. (4) 8 Ves. 209. (5) 4 T. R. 625n. (6) 18 Beav. 559. (1) 24 Beav. 499. (2) 1 Ch. D. (1) [1892] 1 Q. B. 593. (1) 2 M. & S. 286. (2) 2 Q. B. D. 314. (3) 11 Simon, 150. (1) 2 M. & W. 653. Ch. Div., C. A., Halley ......
-
The National Assurance Company v Scott
...claim. There will be liberty to apply. J. MAC M. (1) 3 Russ. 130. (2) 1 R. & M. 338. (3) 3 K. & J. 324. (4) 2 De G. & J. 693. (1) 24 Beav. 499. (1) 3 Russ. (2) 1 R. & M. 338. (3) 2 De G. & J. 693. (4) 3 K. & J. 324. (1) 1 R. & M. 338. (2) 3 Russ. 130, at p. 136. (3) 3 De G. & J. 693. (4) 3 ......