Thomas v Powell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1794 |
| Date | 01 January 1794 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 30 E.R. 182
LORD CHANCELLOR.
See Manson v. Thacker, 1878, 7 Ch. D. 623; Allen v. Richardson, 1879, 13 Ch. D. 540.
thomas versus powell. Trinity Term 1794:, Lord Chancellor. [See Manson v. Thacker, 1878, 7 Oh. D. 623; Allen v. Richardson, 1879, 13 Gh. D. 540.] In a suit for the payment of creditors the real estates of the testator were ordered to be sold. A. being reported the purchaser of one of the estates for £14,480, entered into possession and accepted the title, and proper conveyances were executed. On application by the creditors to have the purchase money paid out, the purchaser stated that the tenants of the estate had been served with a writ of right at the suit of a person who claimed the whole estate under an adverse title. But the Court thought that the purchaser having accepted the title, &c., could not now prevent the money being paid out of Court, and ordered accordingly. By the decree made on the hearing of this cause, parts of the estate of the testator William Dawkin were ordered to be sold for the payment of creditors. On the llth September 1792, W. Digby, Esq., became the purchaser of an estate called the Monknash estate for the sum of £14,480. By an order of 29th July 1793, it was ordered that Mr. Digby should be at liberty to pay his purchase money into the Bank, and be let into possession of the purchased estate, and the purchase money was not to be paid out without notice to Mr. Digby. Mr. Digby accordingly took possession, and soon afterwards the title was approved by him, and the conveyance executed by all necessary parties. In the course of the last term it was moved on the part of the residuary devisees of the testator, that this purchase money (together with other funds in Court in this cause) might be paid out in discharge of several specialty debts which had been 'reported due; and notice of this motion was served upon Mr. Digby. It then appeared that the tenants of the Monknash estate (together with the tenants of great part of the other estates of the testator) had been lately served with a writ of right at the suit of a person of [395] the name of Stradling, who claimed the whole of the estates upon a title adverse to that of Mr. Dawkin ; and Mr. Digby therefore insisted that his purchase % money ought not to be paid out of Court during the pendency of this suit, by which he might possibly be evicted, and it was insisted on his part, that this Court would at any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M' Culloch v Gregory
...examined. If the conveyance had been executed the purchaser must have taken all the consequences, and, as it is said in Thomas v. Powell (2 Cox, 394), he must have rested on the covenants, and having neglected the opportunity of examining the original documents he could not now rescind the ......
-
Phelps v White
...bear his own costs of drawing the money out of Court. CHANCERY DIVISION. PHELPS and WHITE. Cann v. CannENR 3 Sim. 447. Thomas v. PowellENR 2 Cox, 394. Horner v. Williams Jo. & Car. 274. Bos v. HelshamELR L. R. 2 Exch. 72. Taylor v. Gorman 4 Ir. Eq. R. 550. Manson v. Thacker 7 Ch. Div. 620. ......
-
Woodhouse v Jenkins
...Edward Southouse of Manuden had no means of compelling the original lessors and their sons to suffer a common recovery, Thomas v, Powell (2 Cox, 394), Hallett v. Middleton (1 Buss. 243). The Plaintiff, therefore, has not been evicted by the default or procurement of Edward Southouse of Manu......
-
Crompton v Wombwell
...have had a right to this indemnity. The cases of Gator v. Lord Pembroke(l Bro. P. C. 301 ; and 2 Bro. P. C. 282), and Thomas v. Powell (2 Cox, 394), were cited. In the case of Gator v. Lord Pembroke the Court refused to give relief, because the whole purchase-[364]-money had been paid to th......