Sir William Humphreys v his Son Orlando Humphreys
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1735 |
| Date | 01 January 1735 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 24 E.R. 1116
LORD CHANCELLOR TALBOT.
See Creasor v. Robinson, 1851, 14 Beav. 590.
[395] Case 110.-Sir william humphreys v. his Son orlando humphreys. [1735.] [See Creasor v. Robinson, 1851, 14 Beav. 590.] Lord Chancellor Talbot. A. brings a bill against B. to recover divers sums on an account, and also 10,000 on a stale bond of above twenty years standing. The defendant demurs as to what related to the bond, for that the plaintiff might sue at law. The demurrer being allowed, the obligee in the bond sues the bond at law and gets a verdict, after which the defendant brings his bill to be relieved against the bond, as having been satisfied; the court ordered an injunction, for that there was reason to grant relief in equity, though the defendant had demurred to the bill brought on the bond. Mr. Humphreys had brought a bill against his father Sir William Humphreys to recover divers sums of money from the father, and inter aV a bond of 20,000 entered into in 1704, for the payment of 10,000 and interest at the end of the year. The defendant demurred as to that part of the bill that prayed relief on the bond, or to recover the money due thereon; for that the plaintiff had a remedy for the same at law; the bond appearing to be in his custody, and taken in his own name. This demurrer was argued and allowed. Afterwards the son, Mr. Humphreys, brought an action at law on this bond; and on solvit ad diem pleaded, obtained a verdict, viz. that the money secured by the bond was not paid. Upon this Sir William brought his bill, setting forth, that this bond for 10,000 was entered into without any consideration, and intended only to be in force until some settlement should be made on Mr. Humphreys by his father, who, upon his son's marriage in 1707, had given him 10.000, and covenanted to give him 10,000 more; and that a purchase in Essex of 1000 per annum had been settled on the son in possession; also that the bond was afterwards thrown aside amongst useless and neglected papers as a thing of no value, and had been satisfied by stocks of the father that had [396] been transferred to the son, or to his order, specifying the particulars. Mr. Humphreys, to such part of the bill as prayed relief against the bond, pleaded the verdict end the former demurrer put in by Sir William and allowed. And it was argued, that this was properly triable at law; and after that the court, and even Sir...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palmer v Mure
...bill: Kent v. Bridgman (Prec. Ch. 233), after trial at law; Robinson v. Bell, 2 Vern. 146, after a verdict; Humphreys v. Humphreys, 3 P. Wms. 395 ; Black-hall v. Combe, 2 P. Wms. 70 ; Lloyd v. Mansell, 2 P. Wms. 73, set aside by original bill; Countess of Gainsborough v. Gifford, 2 P. Wms. ......
-
Powell v Wallworth
...them paid into Court. Mr. Temple, contra. The interrogatories are prepared, and we will undertake they shall be filed immediately. (1) 3 P. Wms. 395. The cases cited from Atkyns and P. Wins, were cases of pleas, but the same rule holds as to demurrers. See Cousins v. Smith, 13 Ves. 164. 1-M......
-
Serle Administrator of George Serle v Lord Barrington Administrator of Mr. Wildman
...afterwards judgment was given for the plaintiff, and on error brought affirmed in the House of Peers. 3 Bro. Parl. Cas. 535. (a)1 Vide 3 P. Wms. 395, 396. Burr. 434, 1963. 1 T. R. 270. (a)2 According to the state of the case in 3 Bro. Parl. Cas. 536, other circumstantial evidence was given ......