Player v Foxhall
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 June 1826 |
| Date | 29 June 1826 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 38 E.R. 207
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Ferguson v. Gibson, 1872, L. R. 14 Eq. 385; Ex parte Campbell, 1880, 16 Ch. D. 200.
[538] player v. foxhall. Boils. June 20, 29, 1826. [See Ferguson v. Gibson, 1872, L. R. 14 Eq. 385 ; Ex parte Campbell, 1880, 1G Ch. D. 200.] Quwre. Whether the heir of the obligor in a bond, being one of two surviving executors of the obligee, is entitled to retain the amount of the bond out of the produce of the estate descended to him '( If, in a suit instituted by creditors, he accounts for the produce of the real estate in the Master's office, and he and his co-executor prove the bond debt under the decree, he is not entitled to retain. Richard Samuel White died intestate as to his real estate, and indebted in considerable sums both by specialty and simple contract. Foxhall took out administration to him with his will annexed. The real estate 208 PLAYER V. POXHALL 1 BUSS. 539. descended to Richard Samuel White, his heir at law, who sold it and received the proceeds. Among the specialty debts of the intestate was a large sum due on bond to James Somerville Foiones and Richard Samuel White, the heir, as executors of John Curtis, the obligee of the bond. The bill was filed by a specialty creditor of the testator against his administrator and heir, for the administration of the real and personal assets. The heir, by his answer, stated, that he meant to apply the proceeds of the real estate in satisfaction of tlie specialty debts of the deceased : and he did not, upon the record, claim any right of retainer in respect of the bond of which he, as one of the executors of Curtis, was entitled to receive payment. The usual decree being made, the heir was charged before the Master with the purchase-money of the real estate received by him, and with interest thereon, at 4 per cent. On the other hand, he and his co-executor proved the bond debt ; interest was calculated on it at f per cent, up to the date of the, report; and the sum, reported due iti respect of it, was 4880. The assets were found to he insufficient for the payment of the specialty debts in full. [539] The cause coming on for further directions, it was contended on behalf of White, the heir, that lie, as one of the executors of Curtis, the ohligee of the bond, was entitled to retain out of the proceeds of the real estate as much as would suffice to discharge the sum due on the bond. Mr. tikadweU and Mr. Roupeil, for the heir...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jeffreson, Executor of Jeffreson, against Morton, and Dawson, and Others, Tertenants of Yarway
...v. Neville. [See further as to the right of the heir to retain for his own specialty debt, 1 Sim. & Stu. 458, 461, Loomes v. Stotherd. 1 Russ. 538, Player v. Foxhall. As to the right of the devisee to retain, see 1 Sim. & Stu. 458], (i) [1 Cr. & J. 584, note (a). Brown v. Shuker. See ante, ......
-
Hanley v M'Dermott
...2 K. & J. 357. Topham v. The Duke of PortlandENRENR 31 Beav. 525. On appeal, 1 D. G. J. & S. 517; 11 H. L. C. 32. Player v. FoxhallENR 1 Russ. 538. Ferguson v. Gibson 41 L. J. Ch. 640. Lowe v. PeskettENR 16 C. B. 500. Burrell v. SmithELR L. R. 9 Eq. 443. Clay v. WillisENR 1 B. & C. 372. Lee......
-
The Estate of Thomas Ponsonby Carew, Owner; ex parte, Thomas Merrick, Petitioner
...Estate of THOMAS PONSONBY CAREW,Owner; Ex parte, THOMAS MERRICK,Petitioner. Richards v. MolonyUNK 2 Ir. Ch. Rep. 1. Player v. FoxhallENR 1 Russ. 538. Woodward v. Darcy Plow. 185. Tipping v. PowerENR 1 Hare, 405. 112 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1854. Privy Council. In the Matter of The Estate of THOMA......