Payne v Collier
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 June 1790 |
| Date | 14 June 1790 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 30 E.R. 285
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
payne v. coixiek. June Itth, 1790. Trust fund, which under a power in marriage settlement had been lent, decreed to be paid into Court, the trustees representing it to be in danger. By the marriage settlement of John Dyer Collier a trust fund was created with a power to the trustees to put out to interest upon good and sufficient security part of the fund to the amount of 3000 according to the recital; but in the contracting part there was no limitation as to quantity. In pursuance of this power the trustees lent the husband 5000 being nearly the whole of- the fund, upon his and his father's bond. Some having been repaid, the trustees brought a bill to have what remained due paid into the Bank in name of the Accountant General for the purposes of the settlement, and desired costs out of the estate. They stated, that they conceived the fund to be in danger. Solicitor General [Scott], for Defendants. This demand cannot be resisted; but from the particular circumstances the Defendants ought to have some indulgence as to time. When this money was lent, it was principally on the security of the father, who was in very good circumstances. He has since become involved by being security for another son. 3000 of this fund has been paid, partly before, and partly since the bill filed ; and they say, they are engaged in an extensive trade ; and in seven or eight months will be able to pay the whole ; whereas pressing them for it now may prevent them from proceeding in their trade. [171] Lord Chancellor [Thurlow]. I am afraid, I must order it to be paid in immediately, as the trustees represent it to be in danger. Though I might be inclined to allow them time, I cannot. But in the recital the power is to lend 3000 of the fund, though in the contracting part it is not limited : upon that the parties would be entitled to come into this Court to have the settlement reformed according to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coates v Kenna
...2 Atk. 275. Lowther v. CarltonENR 2 Atk. 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 ......
-
MacNamara v Carey
...J. MACNAMARA and CAREY Moore v. Magrath Cowp. 9. Holles v. CarrENR 2 Freem. 3. Young v. SmithELR Law Rep. 1 Eq. 180. Payne v. Collier 1 Ves. Jun. 170. Maclurcan v. Lane 5 Jur. N. S. 56. Farrell v. HilditchENR 5 C. B. N. S. 841. Hobday v. PetersENR 28 Beav. 603. Jacob v. LucasENR 1 Beav. 436......
-
Ex parte Goring
...English Reports Citation: 34 E.R. 693 IN CHANCERY Payne and Collier payne v. collier, 1 Ves. Jun. 170.-See, ante, the note to Doran v. Ross, 1 V. 57. English Reports Citation: 34 E.R. 693 IN CHANCERY Payne and Collier payne v. collier, 1 Ves. Jun. 170.-See, ante, the note to Doran v. Ross,......
-
Payne v Collier
...English Reports Citation: 34 E.R. 693 IN CHANCERY Payne and Collier payne v. collier, 1 Ves. Jun. 170.-See, ante, the note to Doran v. Ross, 1 V. 57. English Reports Citation: 34 E.R. 693 IN CHANCERY Payne and Collier payne v. collier, 1 Ves. Jun. 170.-See, ante, the note to Doran v. Ross,......