Swain con. Wall
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1641 |
| Date | 01 January 1641 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 21 E.R. 534
COURT OF CHANCERY
START swain con. wall. 17 Car. l,f. 16, 148, 252, 315 [1641-42]. Three are bound for H. in 300 and agree, that if H. failed, to pay their respective Parts of the Money, two of the Obligors proved insolvent, the third paid the 300, the other Obligor becomes able, he shall be compelled to pay a third Part, not a Moiety. That the Plaintiff and Defendant and one Jorden 16 Jac. [1618-19] became jointly bound in a Bond of 500 to the City of London for the Payment of 310 in Febr. then next, which 300 was imployed by one Shadwel for procuring the Place of Serjeant at Arms, which Place afterwards Shadwel assigned [150] to one Hunt for good Consideration, which Hunt by Direction and Agreement of the said Shadwel and the Plaintiff and Defendant Jorden entred into several Counter-Bonds unto the Plaintiff, and Jorden and Wall, for their Indemnity from the said Bond of 500 entred in to the City of London; and thereupon it was agreed, that if Hunt fail'd to pay the said Debt to the City, then the Plaintiff, and Jorden and Wall should pay their respective Parts of the said Debt to the City, and Hunt died possessed of the said Place insolvent, so as the Plaintiffs Jorden and Wall were only liable to pay the said Debt; and the City calling in the said Debt, Wall was not able to pay his said Share, and the Plaintiff and Jorden in 1622, took up 300 of one Ducket and Bates, and were bound unto them in several OWigations for Be-payment thereof, and therewith paid the said Debt to the City, and afterwards Jorden became insolvent, so as the Plaintiff, on the Behalf of himself and Jorden and Wall, was forced to pay the said 300 to Ducket and Bates, and all interest; and Wall being afterwards of sufficient Estate to pay his rateable Part of 300 and Interest paid by the Plaintiff as aforesaid ; so the Bill is, that the Defendant Wall may pay to the Plaintiff a Moiety of the 300 and Interest, Jorden being insolvent. 1 CHAN. REP. 151. PERRYMAK V. DINHAM 535 [151] The Defendant Wall insisted, that the said Defendant Wall was not bound in the Bonds given to Ducket and Bates, but only in the first Bond, wherein the Plaintiff and Jorden and the Defendant Wall were bound, and by the Agreement they three were to bear their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd v Drake Insurance Company Ltd
...said that, though the right to contribution is founded in equity, yet it may be varied or excluded by contract. As long ago as 1641, in Swain v. Wall 1 Rep. Ch. 149 it was held that the right of contribution could be modified by contract between the co-obligors. But it can also be modified......
-
Tng Kay Lim v Wong Fook Yew and Another
...the sum paid. 19 However it has long been held that this right to contribution may be modified or excluded by agreement: Swain v Wall (1641) 1 Rep Ch 149, Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd v Drake Insurance Co Ltd [1992] 1 QB 887 (CA) at 20 I first deal with the STA. Wong and Lek exec......