Walwyn v Coutts
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 1815 |
| Date | 11 May 1815 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 906
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 3 Mer. 707. See Johns v. James, 1878, 8 Ch. D. 749; In re Sanders' Trusts, 1878, 47 L. J. Ch 669; Ledbrook v. Passman, 1888, 57 L. J. Ch. 859; Godfrey v. Poole, 1888, 13 App. Cas. 502; Priestley v. Ellis [1897], I ch. 500.
Debtor and Creditor. Voluntary Conveyance.
906 WALWYN V. COUTTS 3 SIM. 14. [14] walwyn v. Courrs.(l) May 11, 1815. [S. C. 3 Mer. 707. See Johns v. James, 1878, 8 Ch. D. 749; In re Sanders' Trusts, 1878, 47 L. J. Ch. 669 ; Ledbrook v. Passman, 1888, 57 L. J. Ch. 859 ; Godfrey v. Pools, 1888, 13 App. Cas. 502; Priestley v. Ellis [1897], 1 Ch. 500.] Debtor and Creditor. Voluntary Conveyance, A father conveys his estates to trustees for paying off annuities granted by his son, together with the arrears, and also the son's debts, if they thought proper to pay them, remainder to himself for life, remainder to his son in fee. The annuities were mentioned in a schedule, but the annuitants were not parties to the deed. The father and son then execute other deeds, varying the former trusts. Motion by one of the scheduled creditors to restrain the trustees from executing the trusts of the subsequent deeds, until they had performed the trusts of the first, refused. The bill was filed by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other creditors of the Marquis of Blandford, who were entitled to the benefit of the after-mentioned indentures of the 22d of February 1812, the 13th of August 1812, and the 20th of October 1813. It stated an indenture of the 13th of March 1809, by which the marquis secured an annuity of 500 to the Plaintiff: that, by indentures of lease and release of the 21st and 22d of February 1812, the release being made between the Defendant and the Duke of Marlborough, of the first part, the Defendant the Marquis of Blandford, of the second part, and the Defendants Blackstone & Coutts, of the third part, after reciting that the duke was seised in fee of the manors and other hereditaments thereinafter described, and that the marquis had granted the annuities mentioned in the schedule thereto, and that the duke was desirous of relieving him from the payment of them, and also to make such provision for him as after mentioned ; the duke, in consideration of natural love and affection, granted, &c., to Blackstone & Coutts, and their heirs, divers manors, &c., upon trust to raise such sums of money as might be sufficient to repurchase the annuities mentioned in the schedule, and all such other annuities, if any, as had, previously to the execution of the release, been granted by the marquis, and also to pay the arrears of the annuities and the costs incidental [16] to paying off the same and to the execution of the trusts; and then in trust, if Blackstone & Coutts should think proper, to raise any further sum which they might deem expedient, to pay any debts then due from the marquis that the trustees should consider advisable to be paid : and, for the purpose of raising such sums, it was declared that the trustees should, at such times as to them, should seem proper, sell the manors and other hereditaments, and should, in the meantime, mortgage the same or any part thereof, and stand possessed of the money to be raised thereby, upon trust to pay off the annuities and arrears, and then upon trust, if the trustees should think proper, but not otherwise, and at the request of the marquis, to pay such of his debts as they should consider advisable to be paid, and then to pay to the duke the surplus of the monies which should be raised in his lifetime, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitmore v Turquand
...(1 Vern. 260) ; Spottiswoode y. Stockdale (G. Coop. 102) ; Garrard v. Lord Lauderdale (3 Sim. 1 ; 2 Rusa. & Myl. 451) ; Walwyn v. Coutes (3 Mer. 707) ; Field v. Lard Donoughmore (1 Dr. & War. 227) Lane v. Husband (14 Sim. 656) ; Collins v. Reece (1 Coll. 675) ; 820 WHITMOEE V. TURQUAND 3 DE......
-
Dale v Hamilton
...Be. 343), Soyce v, Greene (Batty (I.), 608), Austin .v. Chambers (6 Cl. & Fin. 1), Gairard v. Jx 2 Lauderdale (3 Sim. 1), Walwyn v. Cowzfe (3 Sim. 14), ^ctai v. JPoodgafc (2,Myl. & K. 492), Jforftm v. rwarf (2 Y. & C. C. C. 67). . ./, the vice-chancellor [Sir James Wigram]. I cannot think t......
-
Smith v Hurst
...or succeeding trustee, and there was nothing to prevent the immediate revocation of the deed by its author: Walwyn v. Coutts (3 Sim. 14 ; 3 Mer. 707), Garrard v. Lord Lauderdale (3 Sim. 1), Wilding v. Richards (1 Coll. 655). It was therefore an instrument which this Court would not permit t......
-
Kirwan v Daniel
...no interest in the agreement made between John Francis Kirwan and Daniel & Co.: Garrard v. Lord Lauderdale (3 Sim. 1), Walwyn v. Coutts (3 Sim. 14; S. C. 3 Mer. 707), Malcolm v. Scott (3 Hare, 39). The fact that the Plaintiff, being the agent of the transaction, had notice of the terms of t......