Tippins v Coates
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 December 1853 |
| Date | 21 December 1853 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 158
ROLLS COURT.
See Levy v. Sale, 1877, 37 L. T. 710.
[401] tippins . coates. Dec. 21, 1853. [See Levy v. Sate, 1877, 37 L. T. 710.] Bond by three obligors, whereby they bound themselves "jointly," and their heirs, &c., " respectively," to pay, which was conditioned to be void, if they or either of them, their or either of their heirs, paid. Held, that it was a joint and several obligation, and, one having died, that his assets were liable. By a bond, dated the 1st of June 1837, Benjamin Coates, James Hammond, and Henry James became bound to George Smith in £2000 " for the true payment whereof" (the bond proceeded) " we bind ourselves jointly, and our respective heirs, executors and administrators," &c. "The condition of the obligation is such that if the above-bonded Benjamin Coates, James Hammond, Henry James, or either of them, their or either of their 18BBAV.4M. TIFFINS V. COATES 159 [402] heirs, executors or administrators, shall pay, &c., then this obligation to be void." These three persons were said to have been, but were not proved to be, co-partners, and Coates having died, a question arose, in the administration of his assets, as to the rights of Smith as against his estate. According to the affidavit of Smith, who was a solicitor, this bond had been given for the balance of an account for work done'as agent of the three obligors, in divers suits. òò The Master, by his report of the 1st of June 1849, found the debt to be due, as he stated, on a bond under the hands of the testator, Hammond and James, "whereby (keyseverally became bound to the said George Smith," &c. The report had been confirmed, and the case coming on for further directions, it was proposed, in some way, to postpone Smith. The Court directed him to have notice, and to be at liberty to appear. Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Speed, for the executors. The bond is in form a joint bond, for the three are " jointly " bound, and their respective heirs, executors, &c. The latter part of the sentence was intended to meet the case of two being dead, and to bind the heir and executors of the survivor of the three. The penal part is joinc, though the condition ia several. The legal obligation is the penal part, which is joint, and it cannot be made several in equity ; Sumner v. Powell- (2 Meriv. 30). Even if it were in terms several, yet it must be construed with reference to the antecedent debt, which was joint, and due regard must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v Tyndall
...266. The King v. The Inhabitants of Great WakeringENR 5 B. & Ad. 971. Eccleston v. Clipsham See also 3 Rol. Abr. 64. Tippins v. CoatesENR 18 Beav. 401. Webb v. PlummerENR 2 B. & Ald. 746. The Earl of Shrewsbury v.Gould Ibid. 487, 494. Kendall v. HamiltonELR 4 App. Cas. 504, 545. Keightley v......
-
White v Tyndall
...P. Div. Before SIR MICHAEL MORRIS, C. J., and HARRISON, J. TYNDALL and WHITE Primrose v. BromleyENR 1 Atk. 89. Tippins v. CoatesENR 18 Beav. 401. Eccleston v. Clipsham 1 Wms. Saunders,153. Levy v. SaleUNK 37 L. T. 709. Clarke v. BickersENR 14 Sim. 639. pitsley v. WatsonENR 3 Exch. 723. Enys......
-
Henry v Archibald
...188. Motteux v. St. Aubyn 2 W. Bl. 1133. M'Namara v. Browne 5 Ir. L. Rep. 460. Ashlin v. LangtonENR 4 M. & Sc. 719. Tippins v. CoatesENR 18 Beav. 401. King v. HoareENR 13 M. & W. 494. Wakefield v. Smythe 16 Ir. C. L. Rep. 173. Higgins' Case 6 Co. 14, b. Joint Judgment on Joint and Several B......