Sagitary v Hyde
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1687 |
| Date | 01 January 1687 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 23 E.R. 581
IN COURT, LORD CHANCELLOR.
Case 427.-sagitary versus hyde. 2 Maii [1687]. In Court, Lord Chancellor. [1] Eq. Ca. Ab. 142, pi. 8; Post, 2 vol. 44, S. C. A man makes a settlement on one of his co-heirs, with a power of revocation; the heir, before either original filed or bill brought, aliens; but before all the purchase money is paid, an original is filed and a bill brought, and notice thereof is given to the purchaser (Stat. 3 & 4 William and Mary, cap. 14). Per Cur'. There is a difference between a conveyance with a power of revocation, and a conveyance to such uses as a man shall appoint, and he afterwards by will appoints the uses. In the principal case there being a debt owing to the King it was ordered that the King's debt should be satisfied out of the real estate, that the other creditors might be let in to have satisfaction of their debts out of the personal assets.(1) (1) For the leading cases on the doctrine of marshalling assets, vide Clifton v. Burt, 1 P. Wms. 678, and Mr. Cox's notes to that case, in addition to which, as to marshalling in favour of legatees, Foster v. Cook, 3 Bro. Ch. Rep. 347. And no difference where legatee by a codicil, Norman v. Morrell, 4 Ves. 769. As to not marshalling for a charity, Makeham v. Hooper, 4 Bro. Ch. Kep. 155. Nor against judgment creditors, as distinct from specialty creditors, nor where legacy charged on real estate, and payable at a future day, Pearce v. Loman, 3 Ves. 135. Sharpe v. Earl of Scarborough, 4 Ves. 538. Nor where the personal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen v Fay
...Philips v. AstlingENR 2 Taunt. 206. Tobin v. The QueenENR 14 C. B. (N. S.) 505. The Queen v. PerrinIR 4 Ir. Eq. 429. Sagitary v. HydeENR 1 Vern. 455. Newton v. ChorltonENR 10 Hare, 646. Hodge v. The Attorney-General 3 Y. & C. 342. Hardwick v. WrightENR 35 Beav. 133. Wall v. Attorney-General......
-
Ellard v Cooper
...v. Loman 3 Ves. 135. Lanoy v. AtholENR 2 Atk. 446. Hanby v. Roberts Ambl. 127. Wilson v. FieldingENR 2 Vern. 763. Sagitary v. HydeENR 1 Vern. 455. Trimmer v. Bayne 9 Ves. 210. Gibbs v. Ougier 12 Ves. 413. Herne v. MeyrickENR 1 P. Wms. 201. Culpepper v. Aston 2 Chan. Ca. 117. Tipping v. Tipp......
-
Creditor and Debtor
...of the Real Estate, that other Creditors may have Satisfaction of their Debts out of the Per sonal Assets. Satigary [Sagitary] v. Hyde, 1 Vern. 455. 9. One died, leaving a Debt by Judgment, and another due by Bond, and the Judgment-Creditor being at a good Understanding with the Heir, levie......
-
Wright v Simpson
...: Mills v. Eden (10 Mod. 487). The principle of equity is so strong, that it applies even against the prerogative : Sagitary v. Hyde (1 Vern. 455). Porey v. Marsh (2 Vern. 182). Lanoy v. The Duke of Athol (2 Atk. 444). So, where a creditor having an interest to get priority at law, a decree......