William Hyde, since Deceased, v Mary Price, John Price, William Price, William Mann Godshall, Thomas Shearcroft, Edward Walwyn Shepherd, and William John Playters, all since Deceased, and The Governor and Company of the Bank of England; and George Hart v Chase Cradock, William Temple, George Maule, and William Brown and Mary, his wife

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date17 July 1837
Date17 July 1837
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 47 E.R. 461

COURTS OF THE CHANCELLOR

William Hyde, since Deceased
and
Mary Price, John Price, William Price, William Mann Godshall, Thomas Shearcroft, Edward Walwyn Shepherd, and William John Playters, all since Deceased, and The Governor and Company of the Bank of England
and George Hart
and
Chase Cradock, William Temple, George Maule, and William Brown and Mary, his wife

S. C. 8 Sim. 578.

[193] william hyde, since Deceased, v. mary price, john price, william price, william mann godmhall, thomas shearcroft, edward walwyn shepherd, and william john playterh, all since Deceased, and the governor and company of the bank of england; and george hart v. chase cradock, wclliam temple, george maule, and william brown and mary, his Wife. (By Original and Supplemental Bills.) V.-C. July 16, 17, 1837. [S. C. 8 Sim. 578.] In a suit for satisfaction of arrears of an annuity, interest given upon a judgment for securing it, and beyond the penalty. Operation of 3 & 4 Wil. 4, c. 42, s. 28, empowering jury to allow interest upon debts. The early circumstances of these causes are reported in the third volume of Vesey, page 437. So far as the same need be here recapitulated they were as follows. In 1779 differences arose between William Price and Mary his wife, in consequence of 462 HYDE V. PRICE C. P. COOPER 194. which a separation was agreed upon, and by virtue of indentures of June 1779 and January 1794, property ultimately represented by a sum of 2500 four per cent, annuities, became assigned in trust to apply the dividends for the maintenance and support of Mary Price during the joint lives of herself and William Price; and in case John Price, the son of William Price and Mary, should survive Mary Price, then after her decease to transfer the said annuities to him for his own use, but in case he should die before her then in trust to transfer the same to the said William Price, his executors, administrators or assigns. In May 1795, money being wanted to purchase John Price a commission in the army, Mary Price and John Price, in consideration of the sum of 560, sold to William Hyde an annuity of 70, during their joint lives and the life of the survivor, charged upon the aforesaid stock, and an indenture dated the 25th May 1795, made between Mary Price and John Price of the one part and [194] the said William Hyde of the other part, was executed for giving effect to such charge; and as further security, a bond was executed by Mary Price and John Price to the said William Hyde in the penalty of 1120, conditioned for the due payment of the said annuity ; and the said Mary Price and John Price, also executed a warrant of attorney for confessing judgment against them at Hyde's suit for the amount of such penalty. In August 1795, Mary Price and John Price, in consideration of the sum of 240 sold to Thomas Shearcroft an annuity of 30 during their lives and the life of the survivor, and which was secured in all respects in the same way as the annuity previously sold to William Hyde. Hyde's annuity being in arrear he, in June 1796, filed the bill in the first cause against Mary Price, John Price, William Price the husband, Thomas Shearcroft, and the trustees under the indentures of 1779 and 1794. and the Bank of England, to have the 2500 transferred to the Accountant-General, and the dividends applied in payment of his annuity of 70. The cause was heard before Lord Alvanley, who dismissed the bill, so far as it sought payment of the annuity during the life of Mary Price; the indentures of 1779 and 1794 containing no limitation of the dividends to the separate use of Mary Price, and giving her no dominion over the same, but creating a trust for her maintenance and support in which her husband had an interest as well as herself. His Lordship, however, said the grant of the annuity was good as far as it affected the contingent interest of John Price, and that if he survived his mother the fund would be amenable to the annuities. The decree therefore directed a transfer to the Accountant-General, payment of the dividends to a trustee, to be applied for the maintenance of Mary Price during her life, with liberty for the said Mary Price if she survived her husband, and also for William Hyde and William Price, after the death of Mary Price, or any other person interested in the fund, to apply to the Court as they should be advised. [195] William Price died in October 1798. But John Price did not survive his mother ; he died at Cape Coast Castle in June 1802, and she died at Ghent in March 1810. Both died intestate. William Price, however, made a will, but it contained no disposition of his residue, which became divisible between Mary Price his widow and John Price his sole next of kin. In the events that took place the 2500 stock, upon which the annuities had been secured, formed part of this residue. A Mrs. Deriaz was his executrix. The Plaintiff in the second cause had married a daughter and residuary legatee of William Hyde, the annuitant. She was since dead, and he had administered to her, and in the month of May 1834 he filed his bill to have the arrears of the annuity of 70 with interest paid out of the fund which had been accumulating in the Court since Mary Price's death; and after stating the proceedings in the suit of Hyde v. Price and the matters aforesaid, the bill stated as a reason for the late institution of the suit, that the Plaintiff had some time ago applied to the proper Ecclesiastical Court to obtain letters of administration of the goods, chattels and effects of the said John Price arid the said Mary Price, as being a creditor of them respectively, and that he had incurred very considerable expense in attempting to obtain such letters of administration, but that letters of administration were refused to the Plaintiff, and letters of administration of the personal estate and effects of the said Mary Price were on the 4th day of February 1834, and also of the said John Price on the 14th clay of March 1834, granted out of the proper Ecclesiastical Court to the Defendant, George Maule, Esq., the Solicitor to His Majesty's Treasury, on behalf of His Majesty, who thereby became the sole legal personal representative of the said Mary Price C. P. COOPER 198. HYDE V. PRICE 463 and John Price, and claimed to be entitled to the sum of 2500 three and a half per cent. Reduced annuities, into which the said four per cent, annuities had been converted, and the dividends which had accrued due thereon, and all) other assets, if any, belonging to the said [196] Mary Price and John Price, and that there were no letters of administration granted of the personal estate of them or either of them until the aaid letters were granted to the said George Maule, and there was no personal representative of the said Mary Price and John Price or either of them until the said George Maule became such personal representative as aforesaid, on behalf of His Majesty :-The bill prayed that an account might be taken of what was due in respect of the said annuity of 70 and the interest accrued due thereon, such interest to be calculated from time to time as the said annuity from time to time became due, or in such other manner as to the Court should seem just, and that what should be found due might be paid to the Plaintiff out of the personal estate of the said John Price, including his interest in the said sum of 2500 three and a half per cent, annuities, and the accumulations standing in the name of the Accountant-General, to the credit of the said cause of Hyde, v. Price.--and after praying other accounts the bill further prayed that the said suit might be deemed and taken to be a supplemental suit to the said suit of Hyde v. Price, and that the said last-mentioned suit might stand and be revived against the Defendants, or against such of them as it should be necessary that the same should be revived against. The Defendant, Cradock, was the executor of Mrs. Deriaz, and therefore the personal representative of William Price. The Defendants, Brown and wife, were the personal representatives of Shearcroft the annuitant. The Defendant, Temple, was the personal representative of William Hyde, but had refused to take any proceedings to recover the arrears of the annuity for the Plaintiff. The Defendant, Maule, by his answer submitted that the rights of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, Brown and wife, were bound by the Statute of Limitations, 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, a. 3, and this objection was much insisted upon at the hearing before Sir John Leach, on the llth [197] February 1835, but it was overruled on the ground that the statute could not begin to run until the grant of administration to the Defendant, Maule; (1) and His Honour made a decree, declaring that the Plaintiff was to be con-[198]-sidered a creditor of John Price in respect of the securities granted to William Hyde, and it was referred to the Master to take an account of what was due to the Plaintiff for principal and interest on such securities, and [199] in an alternative, which took effect, the Master was to calculate and certify how much was due for principal and in-[200]-terest up to the time of making his report to the Plaintiff, and the Defendants, William Brown and Mary, his wife, in respect of the several annuities of 70 and 30. [201] In pursuance of this decree the Master made his report, from which it appeared, amongst other things, that Hyde [202] signed judgment upon his warrant of attorney in Trinity term, 1795, for the sum of 1120, and that on the 10th [203] March 1810, the day of Mary Price's death, the arrears of William Hyde's annuity amounted to 1035, 8s. 4cl.; that Thomas Shearcroft also signed judgment on his warrant of attorney in Michaelmas term, 1795, for the sum of 480, which was the penalty in his bond, and that the arrears of his annuity up to the time of Mary Price's death came to 437, 10s., and the said Master found that there was due...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Hart v Cradock
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 15 Julio 1837
    ... ... Annuity. Judgment Debt. 8BIM. B78. HYDE V. PRICE 229 [578] hyde v. price. hart v ... On the 19th of June 1779 Wm. Price and Mary, his wife, having agreed to live separate from ... a deed, dated the 20th of January 1794, William Price, in lieu of the provision made for his wife ... assigned is not subject to debts incurred since the date of the deed. Information might be ... 579. himself and his wife; and in case John Price, their son, should survive his mother, then ... Price, in consideration of 240, granted to Thomas Shearcroft an annuity of 30 during their lives ... Maule, the Solicitor to the Treasury, on behalf of the ... ; personal representative of William Price), Brown [581] arid wife, who were the personal tives of Shearcroft, and Temple, who was the personal representative of Hyde, but ... 598 ; and awfe, vol. 3, p. 340), Shepherd v. Macreth (2 H. Black. 284), ^wwi. (1 Salk ... ...
  • Coppin v Gray
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 14 Enero 1842
    ...A bill in equity is only a petition asking for the process of the Court: Wheat v. Graham (7 Sim. 61); Hyde v. Price (8 Sim. 578; C. P. Coop. 193). It was before the recent alterations [207], analogous to the original writ at law. That writ was no bar to the Statute of Limitations, unless su......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT