Richardson v Horton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 December 1843 |
| Date | 16 December 1843 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 49 E.R. 1006
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 13 L. J. Ch. 186; 7 Jur. 1144. Disapproved, Hynes v. Redington, 1858, 10 Ir. Ch. Rep. 206. Cf. In re Iledgley, 1886, 34 Ch. D. 379.
1006 1UCHA.HDSON' V. HOUTON 7 BEAV. 112. [112] richardson v. morton. Dec. 7, 9, 16, 1843. [S. C. 13 L. J. Ch. 186 ; 7 jut. 1144. Disapproved, Hynes v. Redingtm, 1858, 10 Ir. Ch. Rep. 20C. Cf. In re Iledgley, 1886, 34 Ch. D. 379.] Settlement by the heir, upon his marriage, of the ancestor's estates, supported against the claims of the specialty creditors of such ancestor. Sir W. H. died indebted in specialty. After his death, on the marriage of his heiress, a settlement was executed, whereby (after reciting the insufficiency of the personal estate to pay the debts, and that a considerable sum was due on that account) a part of the estates were conveyed to provide a fund to pay the debts, and the remainder was settled on the heiress, her intended husband, and their issue. Many years after, the produce of the estates appropriated to the payment of the debts was found insufficient. Held, that the circumstances did not afford any proof of fraud, or any want of bond fides in the execution of the settlement, that the settled estates were not liable to the specialty debts; and that even if a want of bon&Jiiifx had appeared, relief could only be obtained in a suit putting the mala fries properly in issue. This case came before the Court upon exceptions to the Master's report. Several of the circumstances of the case will be found in a former report of Farrow v. Rees (4 Bear. 18). Sir Watts Horton died on the 5th of November 1811, indebted on specialties in which his heirs were bound. He left an only daughter his heiress at law. The real estate of which he was entitled to dispose consisted of reversions, one of which fell into possession upon hw own death. By his will, he devised his real estate to his wife for life, with remainder to his daughter. He did not charge his real estate with the payment of his debts, and his personal estate was found insufficient to pay them. In the year 1813 Miss Horton married the Defendant Mr. Rees. On that occasion, and in consideration of the then intended marriage, arid for the purpose of providing a fund for payment of the debts, an indenture, dated the 5th of July 1813, was. executed, by and between the Defendant Mr. Rees of the first part, Miss Horton (described as the heir of Sir Watts) of the second part, Lady Horton of the third part, Lord Stanley and Wil-[113]-Ham Horton of the fourth part, and William Cross and John Lee of the fifth part. This deed, amongst other things, recited that the personal estate of Sir Watts was insufficient for the payment of his debts, and that a considerable sum was due on that account, which it had always been the wish of Lady Horton and Miss Hoi-ton to discharge : that a marriage was intended between Mr. Rees and Miss Horton, and that on the treaty for the same, it had been agreed, that a part of the estates should be sold, for the purpose of providing a fund for the payment of all the debts of Sir Watts, and that the other estates should be settled ; and that for the purpose of enabling her daughter to make the settlement, Lady Horton had agreed to relinquish the life-estate given to her by the will; and it was thereby witnessed, that the estates were conveyed by Lady Horton and Miss Horton to Lord Stanley and William Horton, as to part of them, in trust to sell and to apply the money arising from the sale in payment of all the debts of Sir Watts, and after full payment thereof, to pay any surplus to Mr. Rees; and, until the sale, the rents of these estates were made payable to the person, who, for the time being, should be in possession of the other estates. The remainder of the estates were to be held in trust for Mr. Rees for life; after his death, provision was made for payment of a jointure to his widow, and portions for the younger children of the marriage, and, subject thereto, the estates were limited to the first and other sons of the marriage. The bill in this cause was filed in 1824, by unsatisfied specialty creditors of Sir Watts Horton. It was not thereby alleged that the settlement was in any manner fraudulent; but it was charged, that if the personal estate was insufficient for the payment of the debts of Sir Watts, the deficiency ought to be made good out of tha 7BEAV. 1M. RICHARDSON V. HORTON 1007 real estates devised to Miss Horton, subject to the [114] life-estate of Lady Horton, or which descended on Miss Horton; and that, notwithstanding the settlement, the specialty creditors were entitled to have a sufficient part of all the estates therein comprised, sold, to supply the deficiency of the personal estate. The bill prayed for the usual accounts; and if the personal estate and also the money arising from the sale of the estates conveyed, to be sold should be insufficient for payment of the debts, that the deficiency should be raised by sale or mortgage of the other real estates of the testator. The Defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Rees and Lady Horton, in their answer, stated their belief, that the provision made by the settlement for the payment of all the debts of Sir Watts was fully sufficient for that purpose, except such of the debts as were secured by mortgage. The bill charged no fraud, and the answer, necessarily, contained no defence to any imputation of fraud. The decree ordered that the usual accounts of the personal estate, arid of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pimm v Insall
...Wigram, which is the usual decree in a creditors' suit 1 The recent cases of Spademan v. Timbrell (8 Sim. 253), and Richardson v. Horton (7 Beav. 112), were referred to for the purpose of proving that an alienation, although it was not a sale, by a party who was the sou of a debtor, whose d......
-
Kinderley v Jervis
...that the son's widow and children were entitled to hold the estates, discharged from the debts of the father. In Eiduirdsonv. Horton (7 Beav. 112), the settlement by the heir, upon his marriage, of the ancestor's estates was supported against the claims of the specialty creditors of such an......
-
Alsop v Bell
...Bainbrigge and his brother and family, supported the same arguments and cited Spackman v. Timbrell (8 Sim. 253); Richardson v. Harton (7 Beav. 112). Mr. Southgate and Mr. Speed, for other parties. Mr. Kay, in reply. the master of the rolls reserved his judgment. Dec, 19. the master of the r......
-
Morley v Morley Harland v Morley
...the statute does not charge the land but the person of the devisee. In the same way Lord Langdale, in the case of Richardson v. Norton (7 Beav. 112), says, " debts by specialty in which the heirs are bound, constitute no lien or charge upon the land, either in the hands of the debtor or of ......