Spragg v Binkes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1800 |
| Date | 01 January 1800 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 31 E.R. 751
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Heath v. Chadwick, 1848, 2 Ph. 652; Smith v. Moffatt, 1865, L. R. 1 Eq. 401.
spragg v. binkes. Rolls. July llth, 1799 ; March 3d, Aug. 13th, 1800. [Seo Heath v. Chadwick, 1848, 2 Ph. 652 ; Smith v. Moffatt, 1865, L. R. 1 Eq. 401.] Bill by the assignee of a person, who had made a general conveyance in trust for his creditors, and afterwards taken the benefit of an insolvent act, in respect of the surplus against the assignee, the trustee and mortgagees, dismissed with costs. Henry Evans Holder by indentures of lease and release, dated the 30th and 31st of March 1792, conveyed and [584] assigned to Thomas and John Daniel, their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, a freehold plantation and premises in the island of Barbadoes, with the buildings, and appurtenances, negroes, slaves, cattle, and stock, subject to an. annuity of 150 issuing out of part of the premises, to his wife for her life, if she should survive him. ; with a proviso for redemption on payment of 8882, 15s. 3d. the debt then due to Thomas and John Daniel, and such other sums as they should advance. By indentures of lease and release, dated the 25th and 26th of March 1794, the same estates, and the slaves, cattle, and stock, were conveyed and assigned to Binlces and another trustee, their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns ; upon trust, subject to an annuity of 400 a-year for Holder during his life, to pay his creditors. In October 1795 Holder took the benefit of an Insolvent Act ; and the estate in the island of Barbadoes with other property of his was conveyed by the Clerk of the Peace to Binlces, his heirs, executors, &c., in trust for his creditors. By indentures of lease and release, dated the llth and 12th of December 1795, Holder conveyed and assigned the said plantation and premises, negroes, and stock, in Barbadoes to James Spragg, his heirs, executors, &c., subject to the trusts of the said deeds for the benefit of his creditors and the prior charges, to pay himself a debt of 750 with interest (for which Holder's promisory note was then given up), and such farther sums as he should advance ; and as to the surplus money arising from the said estate, in trust for Holder, his executors, &c. Upon a farther advance, amounting in the whole to 1766, 19s. 3d., Holder upon the 24th of March 1798, released and assigned all his remaining interest in the estate to Spragg, upon Spragy's securing to him an annuity of 400 a-year for his life ; and Spragg executed a bond in the penalty of 5000 for securing the annuity. By a subsequent agreement upon the 21st of May 1798, Holder gave up that annuity in consideration of 2900. The bill was filed by Spragg against the Daniels, Holder, and Binkes, the surviving trustee in the deed for the benefit of the creditors, and Troughton, another mortgagee ; praying an account in respect of the surplus, after discharging the incumbrances and. execution of the trusts. [585] Thomas and John Daniel had been, consignees of part of the produce ; and had kept down their interest, and retained, in respect of the principal due to them, to the extent of 612, 19s. 4rf. ; and part of the produce had been paid over by them to Holder or on his account. This cause was argued first upon the llth of July 1799 ; arid again, by the direction of the Master of the Rolls, on the 3d of March 1800. Mr. Richards and Mr. Johnson tor the Plaintiff. The deed of trust amounted in effect only to a second mortgage. The mortgagor had a right to an account in respect of the surplus; and he conveyed all his interest to the Plaintiff, in consideration of money paid and an annuity ; the latter being afterwards given up by a new agreement in consideration of 2000. It is objected against the Plaintiff's right to sue, that he purchased from a man...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heath v Tang ; Stevens v Peacock
...or may make such other order as it thinks fit." 9But the jurisdiction goes back many years, to the decisions of Lord Alvanley M.R. in Spragg v Binkes 5 and Lord Eldon in Benfield v. Solomons 6. In the latter case the bankrupt alleged collusion between his assignees in bankruptcy and persons......
-
Heath v Tang ; Stevens v Peacock
...or may make such other order as it thinks fit." 9But the jurisdiction goes back many years, to the decisions of Lord Alvanley M.R. in Spragg v Binkes 5 and Lord Eldon in Benfield v. Solomons 6. In the latter case the bankrupt alleged collusion between his assignees in bankruptcy and persons......
-
Swift Advances PLC v McKay (Michael Gerard) and Walker (Brian F); Swift Advances PLC v Dalrymple (Gerard) and Walker (Brian F)
...as an injunction against him personally and to appeal. As Hoffmann LJ pointed out there was at common law, going back to Spragg v Binkes (1800) 31 ER 751, a jurisdiction in the court to supervise the actions of trustees in bankruptcy and such is now to be found in statute. It is therefore n......