Primrose v Bromley, Executor of Mead
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 December 1739 |
| Date | 14 December 1739 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 58
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Case oG.-primrose v. bromley. Executor of mead. December the 14/fe, 1739. S. C. 2 Yes. 102, cited. Where an assignee dies before he has accounted for what he has received, and leaves do personal assets, the creditors have a lien upon his real estate. There was a decree in another cause that all creditors, as well those who were parties to the bill, as otherwise, shall come before the Master to prove their debts against the estate of Mead ; among the rest there appeared before the Master Moore, the surviving 1 ATK. 90. EX PARTE LANE 59 assignee of one Barker, a bankrupt, and claimed as a debt such, money as Mead had received as joint assignee with Moore, under the commission against Barker. In the deed of assignment, Moore, Mead, and another assignee of Barker, covenanted for themselves, their heirs, executors, and administrators, to account for such money as they or either of them shall receive, to the commissioners. Mead before his death got in very large sums of money from the bankrupt's estate, and is dead insolvent. The question before the Master was, Whether the commissioners under this assignment are to be considered as simple contract creditors only; and it came now before the court upon exceptions to this part of his report. Lord Chancellor. I am of opinion that the commissioners ought to be considered as specialty creditors, because the assignees executed a counterpart of the assignment to them, and the agreement, being under hand and seal, makes it in the nature of a specialty debt; and, as they are considered in this light, though Mead is dead without any personal assets, yet they may come upon his real estate. The words of the assignment, to account for such money...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v Tyndall
...LORD ASHBOURNE, C., and FITZ GIBBON and BARRY, L. J J. TYNDALL and WHITE Sorsbie v. ParkENR 12 M. & W. 146, 156. Primrose v. BromleyENR 1 Atk. 89. Levy v. SaleUNK 37 L. T. (N. S.) 709. Hellier v. Gasbard Siderfin, 266. The King v. The Inhabitants of Great WakeringENR 5 B. & Ad. 971. Ecclest......
-
White v Tyndall
...P. Div. Before SIR MICHAEL MORRIS, C. J., and HARRISON, J. TYNDALL and WHITE Primrose v. BromleyENR 1 Atk. 89. Tippins v. CoatesENR 18 Beav. 401. Eccleston v. Clipsham 1 Wms. Saunders,153. Levy v. SaleUNK 37 L. T. 709. Clarke v. BickersENR 14 Sim. 639. pitsley v. WatsonENR 3 Exch. 723. Enys......
-
Bishop v Church
...cited ibid, is in 1 P. W. 634. Probart v. Clifford, cited p. 102, is in 1 Atk. 440, and Ambler, 6. Primrose v. Bromley, cited ibid, is in 1 Atk. 89. English Reports Citation: 28 E.R. 551 REPORTS IN CHANCERY OF FRANCIS VESEY, SENIOR Bishop and Church II. 371.-bishop versus church, July 25, ......
-
Harrington and Milligan v Long
...into the Court pro bono et mah, and shall be liable to all the costs in the proceedings, from the beginning to the end of the suit (Anon., 1 Atk., 89). Where, then, can be the illegality of an indemnity given by the purchaser of an interest perulente lite against costs to which the law of t......