The Bank of England, - Appellants; Katherine Morice, Widow, and Others, - Respondents
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 1737 |
| Date | 24 May 1737 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 1 E.R. 1068
House of Lords
Mew's Dig.vi. 1705. See Cas.t.Talb.218; Dollond v.Johnson, 1854, 2Sm.& G.303.
The decree of a Court of Equity, is equal to a judgment at law, and where an executor, in obedience to a decree, pays away assets to some creditors, after which other creditors obtain judgments against him, to which the decree is not pleadable, the court will protect him in paying obedience to the decree.
II BROWN. BANK OF ENGLAND V. MORICE [1737] DECREE. case 1.-the bank of england,-Appellants; kathekine morice, Widow, and Others,-Eespondents [24th May 1737]. [Mew's Dig. vi. 1705. See Gas. t. Talb. 218; Dollond v. Johnson, 1854, 2 Sm. & G. 303.] [The decree of a Court of Equity, is equal to a judgment at law, and where an executor, in obedience to a decree, pays away assets to some creditors, after which other creditors obtain judgments against him, to which the decree is not pleadable, the court will protect him in paying obedience to the decree.] Forrester, 217, 3 Wms. 402, note. Viner, vol. 19. p. 326. ca. 6. Humphry Morice, the respondent's husband, for many years before his death carried on a very extensive trade as a merchant, to the coast of Africa and all the British plantations in America, and also to Holland, Russia, and the East-Indies, and other places. On the 16th of November 1731, the said Humphry Morice died, having made his will, and appointed the respondent Katherine Morice, his widow, sole executrix thereof, who, soon after his death, proved the same. Mr. Morice at his death left effects of great value in Jamaica, and other parts of the West Indies and places abroad, to which he traded, and many ships on the sea bound for Africa and the West [466] Indies, with rich cargoes ; and also a real and very considerable personal estate, particularly 3000 bank stock ; but notwithstanding this large estate, he left so many debts due to creditors in England, besides such as were due to his creditors abroad, that all his estate and effects in England, and those which there were any hopes of recovering from abroad, proved deficient to satisfy his debts. For Mr. Morice, as afterwards appeared, was at his death indebted in 16,000 upon specialities in England, and in upwards of 130,000 on simple contract; and amongst his simple contract debts there was due from him on the 15th of December 1731, to the respondents Ann, Judith, and Elizabeth, his three daughters by his first wife, being trust money of theirs in his hands, for principal and interest, 27,376 lls. 9d.-There was also due to the respondents Sir Thomas Lee's children, for principal and interest to the same time, 9376 8s. 9d.-To the respondent Ann Sandes, for principal and interest, 4648 6s. 9d.-And to the respondents John Claxton and his wife and son, for principal and interest, 16,767 3s. amounting together to 58,168 10s. 3d. the principal of all which sums were trust monies of the said several respondents in his hands. Mr. Morice was likewise indebted to the respondent Ann Colemore, on account of trust stocks and monies of her's with which he had been entrusted, in 500 East-India stock, 864 9s. 8d. South-Sea stock, 319 13s. South-Sea annuity stock, 104 10s. 2d. paid him in cash, and in 16 Is. 7d. dividends received by him, and unaccounted for at his decease. The appellants, the Bank of England, also claimed a debt due to them by simple contract of 29,000 and upwards.-Mr. Morice was further indebted by simple contract to the appellant James Henckell in 2089 5s.- To Mary Glover and Henry Voght in 1440.-To William Snelgrave, for principal and interest, 1948.-To James Pearce, for principal and interest, 2115.-To Jeremiah Pearce, for principal and interest, 935 16s.-To John Dagg, 1015 18s.-To Joseph Grove, 4103 6s. 5d. amounting together to 13,647 5s. 5d.-To the appellants Theodosia Crowley and Joseph Gascoigne Nightingale, by simple contract, in 1507 Os. 5d.-To the appellants Benjamin Weale, Lawrence Victorin, and several others, in several sums of money, amounting together to 6682 17s. 8Jd.-To the other respondents in several considerable sums of money, and also to several others, who were no parties to any suit hitherto commenced, either in law or equity. Mr. Morice being thus indebted, and his creditors upon his death finding how 1068 BANK OF ENGLAND V. MORICE [1737] II BEOWN. greatly his debts exceeded his effects, they all of them, (as it was natural for them to do,) considered of the most effectual and expeditious means to secure themselves, and accordingly bills in equity and actions at law, to a great number, were brought against the respondent Katherine Morice, the testator's executrix. The first of those suits was a bill filed on the 15th of December 1731, by the respondents Ann, Judith, and Elizabeth Morice, the testator's said three daughters by his first wife, Sir Thomas Lee [467] and his children Thomas, William, and Ann Lee, John Claxton, Esq. and Sarah his wife, and Brown Claxton, Esq. and Ann Sandes, widow, against the respondent Katherine, as executrix of her said late husband, setting forth, amongst other things, that John Brown, merchant, by his will, dated the 4th of October 1720, gave to the said Humphry Morice 16,500 in trust for his five daughters, (of whom the said Ann, Judith, and Elizabeth, were the only survivors,) to be paid in manner in the bill stated ; and 5000 in trust for the Claxtons, as therein mentioned; and 10,000 in trust for the Lees, as therein mentioned; and gave to the said Ann Sandes 3000, and after some other legacies, made Mr. Morice residuary legatee and sole executor of his said will. The bill then stated what had been paid off in part, and what remained due to the several parties, and that no part of the trust money due to his daughters had been paid, but that Mr. Morice had duly paid the interest of the other remaining trust money as it became due to the time of his death ; and having in their said bill specified the particular sums which were due to each of them respectively from the testator at his death, for principal and interest, and from thence to the time of filing their said bill, amounting in the whole to the said sum of 58,168 10s. 3d. they prayed a decree for payment of the same. To this bill the respondent Katherine put in her answer ; and stated what appeared upon inspection of her husband's accounts and papers, and set forth a copy of such of them as were required; and further disclosed the uncertainty of her testator's assets, and the true account of his debts by specialty and simple contract then come to her knowledge; and said, she could not admit assets to answer the plaintiff's demands, but was willing to administer her testator's estate in a due course of administration, as far as his assets would extend, and submitted the whole to the judgment of the court. On the 25th of January 1731, this cause was heard before his Honour the Master of the Rolls, upon bill and answer only ; when it was, amongst other things, decreed, that the respondent Katherine should, out of the assets of her said husband, pay the said several sums demanded by the plaintiff's bill in a course of administration ; and for that purpose, that she should account for the personal estate of her late husband, which had or should come to her hands, and that subsequent interest should be carried on for the several principal sums mentioned in the decree, from the time of filing the bill, till the said accounts should be taken, and for the taking whereof all proper directions were given. This decree was afterwards inrolled, and the respondent Katherine served with a writ of execution of it; and having then got in more effects of the testator's than were sufficient to pay off the specialties, she did, in obedience to and in part performance of the said decree, pay out of her husband's assets 10,111 to the said Ann and Judith Morice, who were then of age, in satisfaction of part of what was so decreed to be due to them. [468] On the 16th of December 1731, the respondent Ann Colemore, wif e of Thomas Colemore, by her next friend, exhibited her bill against the respondent Katherine, as executrix of her late husband, setting forth, amongst other things, that several quantities of South-Sea stock, South-Sea annuities, and East-India stock were transferred, and several sums of money paid to the said Humphry Morice, in trust for her separate use, and upon such trusts as therein mentioned, exclusive of her said husband; and that a great part thereof remained due, viz. 862 3s. 6d. South-Sea stock, 319 13s. South-Sea annuities, 500 East-India stock, 16 Is. 7d. due for dividends thereof, together with what other dividends were due thereon ; and 104 10s. 2d. being money paid to the said Humphry Morice, as in the said bill specified, with interest; and therefore prayed, that the said several stocks, or so much thereof as remained in the name of the said Humphry Morice, in the books respectively belonging to the said Companies, might be transferred to trustees, with the dividends thereof, 1069 II BEOWN. BANK OF ENGLAND V. MORICE [1737] upon the several trusts in the bill specified : and as to so much as the said Humphry Morice had disposed of to his own proper use, that the respondent Katherine might be decreed out of his assets to make good the same, with the dividends thereof ; and might also pay the said sum of 104 10s. 2d. to trustees, to be appointed in manner in the bill mentioned ; and might pay to the said Ann Colemore the said 16 Is. 7d. and all dividends of the said stocks, and all interest on the said 104 10s. 2d. then or thereafter to become due to her. To this bill likewise the respondent Katherine put in her answer agreeable to the truth of the case, and submitted the whole to the direction of the court. On the 2d of February 1731, this cause of Colemore's was heard before his Honour the Master of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v Park
...of the assets : Morrice v. The Bank of 1 KEEN 720. LEE V. PARK 485 England (Ca. temp. Talb. 217 ; S. C. more fully, 3 Swanst. 573; and 2 Bro. P. C. 465, òedit. Toml.), Martin v. Martin (1 Ves. sen. 211). In the beginning, a judgment, obtained after a decree quod mmputet (not being a decree ......
-
The Carron Iron Company v Maclaren
...quod computet was not sufficient to found the jurisdiction, Martin v. Martin (1 Ves. 211), which followed the Bank of England v. Morice (2 Bro. P.C. 465). Lord Thurlow thought otherwise, because the Court had possession of the assets, and that such a decree was for the benefit of all the cr......
-
Burke v Killikelly
...2 Wms. Saund. 9, c note. Ashley v. PocockENR 3 Atk. 208. Morrice v. Bank of EnglandENR Cas. temp. Talbot, 217; S. C. 3 Swanst. 573; 2 Bro. P. C. 465, Toml. ed. Simpson v. TaylorUNK 7 Ir. Eq. Rep. 182. Robinson v. Harington Powell on Mortgages, 515. Borough v. WilliamsonUNK 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 1......
-
Martin v Martin
...personal assets : and a short bill was brought in upon the case of Morrice v. The Bank of England [Cas. Talb. 217] (also 3 P. W. 432 ; 2 Bro. P. C. 465, octavo edit., in which last it is remarkably well reported), but laid aside from the difficulty, and the time : but that equality, as far ......