The Earl of Portmore v Taylor
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 April 1831 |
| Date | 15 April 1831 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 58 E.R. 69
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 9 L. J. Ch. (O. S.) 203. See Fry v. Lane, 1888, 40 Ch. D. 320.
Expectant Heir. Sale of Reversion.
[182] the earl of portmore v. taylor. Jan. 17, 18, 19, April 15, 1831. [S. C. 9 L. J. Ch. (O. S.) 203. See Fry v. Law., 1888, 40 Ch. D. 320.] Expectant Heir. Sale of Reversion. A sale by an heir apparent, of interests in possession and in reversion, set aside, the consideration being inadequate and advantage having been taken of the vendor's embarrassments. In 1795 the Plaintiff, who was then Viscount Milsintown, was appointed colonel of the North Lincoln Militia, and continued to be colonel of the regiment until it was disembodied in 1816. Upon receiving his commission he appointed Messrs. M'Donald, Bruce & Laitdon, army agents, to be the agents for the regiment, and for himself as colonel of the regiment. In 1803 the partnership between M'Donald & Co. was dissolved, upon which the Plaintiff appointed Bruce to be agent for himself and the regiment; and Bruce held the appointment till 1816. At the time when the after-mentioned agreement between Bruce and the Plaintiff was entered iuto, the latter was in great pecuniary distress, many of his creditors having commenced actions against him for debts which he had not any means of satisfying, and he had a large family of children dependent upon him for support. At that time the Plaintiff had no income except his pay and emoluments as colonel of the regiment and 1499 per annum, which he derived under his marriage settlement, and which consisted of a rent-charge of 500 a year for the joint lives of himself and his father, the late Earl of [183] Portmore, and interest at 4^ per cent, upon a mortgage sum of 5000, and the dividends of 19,350, 5s. 9d. four per cents, for his own life. But he had charged his income under the settlement with redeemable annuities to the amount of 1050 per annum, and he had also granted another redeemable annuity of 350 for his life ; so that his clear income in possession under the settlement amounted to 99 only ; but he was also entitled under the settlement to a reversionary life interest, expectant on his father's decease, in 38,483, 9s. three per cents. All the above circumstances being well known to Bruce, he, on the 25th of March 1808, agreed to purchase of the Plaintiff for 15,500 the interests which the Plaintiff was so entitled to under his marriage settlement, and also an annuity of 500 to commence upon his father's decease, on the happening of which event the before-mentioned rent-charge of the same amount would cease. On the 25th of March 1808 the Plaintiff was indebted to Bruce in 463, 2s. 5d. on the balance of the regimental accounts subsisting between them. Between the 26th of March 1808 and the 27th of April in the same year Bruce advanced to or on the account of the Plaintiff, in order to relieve him from the pressing demands of his creditors, several sums of money, most of which were of small amount, but, together with the 463, 2s. 5rl., amounting to 2421, 16s. 2d. ; and for securing that sum with interest, the Plaintiff gave to Bruce his bond dated the same 27th of April; and on 70 EARL OF PORTMORE V. TAYLOR 4 SIM. 184. the next day Bruce, as a further security, insured the Plaintiff's life for 2400. Between the 28th of April and the 12th of May Bruce advanced, in like manner, for the Plaintiffs use, several other sums which, together with the 2421, 16s. 2d. and the interest thereof, [184] amounted to 4950; and for securing that sum with interest the Plaintiff, on the same 12th of May, gave to Bruce a warrant of attorney, upon which judgment was soon afterwards entered up for 9900. On the 12th of May 1808, at which time the Plaintiff and his father were of the respective ages of 36 and 62 years, articles of agreement for the before-mentioned purchase were entered into between the Plaintiff and Bruce, in which the former was described as the eldest son and heir apparent of the Earl of Portmore; and, thereby, the Plaintiff, in consideration of 15,500 to be paid by Bruce, agreed to sell to him the interests to which the Plaintiff was entitled under his marriage settlement, and to grant to Bruce an annuity of 500 for the Plaintiff's life, to commence on his father's decease ; and it was agreed that the agreement should be completed by the 9th of July then next, and. that in the conveyance to be made in pursuance of the agreement there should be inserted a covenant that the Plaintiff would not consent to the investment of the 5000, or of the 19,350, 5s. 9d. three per cents., in the purchase of real estates, under the power for that purpose contained in the settlement, or to any alteration of the securities upon which the same were invested, without Bruce's previous consent, and that in case any such purchase or variation of securities should be made, then the Plaintiff should pay to Bruce such sums of money as would give to him an income to the same amount as he was before entitled to, and that the payment of those sums should be secured in the manner therein mentioned; and it was further agreed that all the expenses of the deeds for carrying the agreement into effect, and of filing a memorial of such of them as it should be necessary to memorialize, should be borne [185] by tbe Plaintiff, and that the 4950 (in which the Plaintiff was indebted to Bruce as before mentioned) should be taken in part of the 15,500 and should, thereupon, be released by Bruce. Between the date of this agreement and the 9th of November following, Bruce advanced on Lord Milsintown's account several other sums of money, principally of small amount (one of them being 13s. only), and Bruce secured those sums by insuring the Plaintiffs life. The agreement was carried into effect by a deed dated the 14th of March 1810, and made between tbe Plaintiff (who was described as before), Bruce and the persons who were appointed by him to be his trustees in the purchase, and the several persons to whom the prior annuities had been granted by the Plaintiff and their trustees; and after reciting the agreement of the 25th of March 1808, and that on the same day the Plaintiff was indebted to Bruce on the balance of his pay-account, in 463, 2s. 5d., and that Bruce had at different times during the months of March and April 1808 paid, to or oh account of tbe Plaintiff, the several sums of money therein specified, amounting with the 463, 2s. 5d. to 2421, 16s. 2d., for securing which sum the Plaintiff had executed the bond of the 27th of April 1808, and Bruce had insured the Plaintiffs life for 2400, and further reciting that, in the months of April and May 1808, Bruce had paid to or on the account of the Plaintiff several other sums of money therein also specified, and which, with the 2421, 16s. 2d., amounted to 4950, for which the Plaintiff had given the warrant of attorney, as before-mentioned, upon which judgment [186] had been entered up; and that between the 12th of May and the 9th of November 1808 Bruce had paid other sums, in like manner, for securing which he had insured the Plaintiff's life for 600, and that, for better securing his said debt, he had effected three other insurances on the Plaintiff's life at the premiums therein mentioned, and that it had been agreed that the purchase should take effect from the date of the now-stating indenture, instead of the 9th of July : and that there was then due to Bruce 95 for interest on the 2421, 16s. 2d. up to the 12th of May 1808, and 407, 15s. for interest on the 4950 from the 12th of May 1808, and 91, 18s. for interest on the sums paid by Bruce to or on the account of the Plaintiff since the same 12th of May, and that it had been agreed that the Plaintiff should pay or allow the premiums and duties paid by Bruce on the policies of insurance, which, with the interest thereon, amounted to 89, 18s., and that that sum and the sums paid by Bruce on the Plaintiff's account, since the 12th of May 1808, the 4950, and the sums so due for interest, amounted 4 SIM. 187. EARL OF POBTMORE V. TAYLOR 71 together to 6864, 3s. lOd.; and that Bruce had received on the Plaintiff's account 236, 6s. for regimental accoutrements, which, with interest, amounted to 251, 13s. 8d., and that sum being deducted from the 6864, 3s. lOd. left a balance of 6612, 10s. 2d. due to Bruce; and that it had been agreed that the annuities which the Plaintiff had granted should be repurchased, and the arrears thereof discharged out of the purchase-money of 15,500, and that Bruce had accordingly paid to the annuitants 11,850, 9a. lOd. in the whole, and which being added to the 6612, 10s. 3d. amounted to 18,463, and that it had been agreed that that sum, so consisting of principal and interest, should be deemed one aggregate [187] principal sum, and that 15,500, part thereof, should be accepted by the Plaintiff, in satisfaction of the 15,500 agreed to be paid by Bruce for the purchase, and that 2963, the remainder of the 18,463, should be considered as so much principal money owing to Bruce from the Plaintiff; and further reciting that it had been agreed that the duty ad valorem on the purchase should be borne by them equally, and that the Plaintiff should pay all the other expenses of carrying the purchase into effect, and that Bruce had agreed to lend the Plaintiff 460 (which was to be added to the 2963), to enable the Plaintiff to pay his share of the ad valorem duty, and the bill of costs of Bruce's solicitor in the purchase : it was witnessed that Bruce released the Plaintiff from the 15,500; and the Plaintiff assigned to Bruce the rent-charge of 500 created by his marriage settlement, the interest and dividends of the 5000, and of the 19,350, 5s. 9d. four per cents., payable to the Plaintiff for his life, and also the dividends of the 38,483, 9s. consols, which would be payable to the Plaintiff for his life after the decease of his father; and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt
...and Investments Commission (2018) 352 ALR 689 at 694 [17]. 297 Fry v Lane (1888) 40 Ch D 312 at 321. 298 The Earl of Portmore v Taylor (1831) 4 Sim 182 at 209 [ 58 ER 69 at 79]; Bromley v Smith (1859) 26 Beav 644 at 662, 665 [ 53 ER 1047 at 1054, 1055]; Tottenham v Green (1863) 32 LJ Ch 201......
-
Smith v Bromley
...301); Cole, v. Gibbons (3 P. Wms. 290, 293); Gwynne v. Heaton (1 Bro. C. C. 1); Lawley v. Hooper (3 Atk. 278); Earl Portmore v. Taylor (4 Sim. 182); Dawx v. The Duke of Marlborough (Swan. 108, 139, 154); King v. Humid (2 Myl. & K. 456 ; 3 01. & Fin. 218); Newton v. Hunt (5 Sim. 511); The Ea......
-
Tynte v Beavan
...They cited Chesterfield v. Janssen (2 Ves. s. 125); Davis v. Marlborough (2 Sw. 108); SH. &M. 294. TYNTE V. HODGE 477 Porttnore v. Taylor (4 Sim. 182); Aldborough v. Trye (7 C. & F. 436); Gmvland v. De Faria (17 Ves. 20); Shelly v. JVosA (3 Madd. 232); Fax v. JPnV/ (6 Madd. Ill); Perfect v.......
-
Nesbitt v Berridge Butler v Berridge
...the doctrine applicable to purchases of reversionary interests; Wardle v. Carter (7 Sim. 490), and see The Earl of Pmtmorre v. Taylor (4 Sim. 182). Secondly, Daniel was not the Plaintiff's solicitor, but his real adviser was a Mr. Daly. Thirdly, these Defendants are purchasers of this prope......