Robinson v Litton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 1744 |
| Date | 12 December 1744 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 922
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Stansfield v. Habergham, 1804, 10 Ves. Jur. 278; Turner v. Wright, 1860, 2 De G. F. & J. 242.
Case 67.-ashley versus pocock, amongst the Cause Petitions, December 19, 1744. An executor ought to pay that creditor first who uses the first diligence ; so in an action at law, he who obtains the first judgment shall be preferred; otherwise as to legatees, for as there is no priority in legacies, an executor should pay them pari passu. Mr. Barnsley by his will devises the residue of his estate between the Kingscots and Pococks ; the plaintiff Ashley married one of the Pococks, the Kingscots brought the first bill against Barnsley's executor for an account, and obtained a final decree; then Ashley brought the second bill against the executor of Barnsley's executor. A petition is now preferred by Ashley, who is intitled to a distribution under Barnsley's will, for fourteen hundred pounds, to be paid him out of a sum of money placed in the bank to the credit of this cause. [209] Lord Chancellor. Suppose two creditors at large of the first testator Barnsley, and one brings a bill before the other, and obtains a final decree, and a report of the Master, and that report has been confirmed, and then the other brings a bill and obtains a final decree, and his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blake v Peters
...to restrictions, which could not even by express words be imposed upon an absolute devisee in fee. Lord Hardwicke, in EoUnson v. Litton (3 Atk. 209), had decided that a tenant in fee, subject to an executory devise, might be restrained from waste, and this is approved in Stcmfield v. Haberg......
- Neill v Federal Commissioner of Land Tax
-
The Trusts of Sheppard's Will, and The Trustee Act, 1850
...a person's interest is only contingent he cannot come to the Court to have it protected ; Cole v. Moore (Moore, 806); Robinson v. Litton (3 Atk. 209); Williams v. Duke of Balton (3 P. W. 268, n.); Robinson v. Robinson (2 Ves. 229); titansJiM v. Hahwgham (10 Ves. 273); Garth v. Cotton. (1 Di......
-
Turner v Wright
...waste, the case of Wriijht v. AOeyns (17 Ves. 255 ; Sugden, Law of Property, 376) is in accordance with the decree; but Mobinxon v. Litton (3 Atk. 209), [237] approved of by Lord Eldon in Stansfield v. Habergham (10 Ves. 273), is an express authority in favour of our claim in its entirety. ......