Williams v Price
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 February 1824 |
| Date | 09 February 1824 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 229
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 2 L. J. Ch. (O. S.) 105. See Mayer v. Murray, 1878, 8 Ch. D. 428.
Debtor and Creditor.
[581] williams v. price. Feb. 9, 1824. [. C. 2 L. J. Ch. (0. S.) 105. See Mayer v. Murray, 1878, 8 Ch. D. 428.] Debtor and Creditor. Where a creditor takes from his debtor an assignment of a debt due from a third person as a security for his demand, and, by his wilful default, the debt becomes irrecoverable, he must bear the loss. By an indenture dated the 4th of February 1817, and made between Walter Price of the one part and John Price of the other part, after reciting that Walter Price, in Hilary term 1816, obtained a judgment in the Court of King's Bench against James Price, in an action of debt upon a bond for £1600, and that there was then due to Walter Price, for principal and interest upon the judgment, the sum of £520, and that Walter Price was indebted to John Price in the sum of £520, and, in order to secure to him the due payment thereof with interest, had proposed and agreed to assign the judgment, and all monies due and owing to him by virtue thereof, to John Price in manner therein mentioned, Walter Price assigned to John Price the judgment and all money then due and to become due thereon, subject to a proviso that, if Walter Price, his executors, administrators or assigns, should pay to John Price the sum of £520 with interest for the same at £5 per cent., on the 4th of 23Q WILLIAJUS ;V. PRICE 1 KL ft ST;'82. February 1818 then-'nexf, the indenture should become void :ò and Walter Price thereby covenanted, with John. Price that he, hialieinj, executors or administrators would pay to John Price the £52Qand interest at the time before mentioned. [582] In October 1818 Walter Price died, having appointed the Plaintiffs his executors. In June 1818 the Defendant sued .out execution on the: judgment against James Price, bat; in consequence of his attorney being then otherwise engaged, the; execution was not put into the sheriffs hands; and, in August following, James Price paid to John Price £300 'in- part payment of the JE520, and promised to pay the balance'; upon which the Defendant refrained from putting.the execution into the sheriff's hands. No further payment being made on .account of the debt, John Price; after many ineffectual applications had been "made by him, to James; Price, caused' another execution to be issued against him in April 1819 ifor the residue of the debt; but that execution having been issued in the :hame of Walter Price, no levy was made under it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bernard John Daly v Patrick Kirwan
...KIRWAN. Mitf. 289; Harris v. PollardENRENR 3 P. Wms. 348; S. C. 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 2. Sibree v. TrippENR 15 M. & W. 23. Williams v. PriceENR 1 Sim. & St. 581. Dartnell v. Taylor 1 Ll. & temp. Plun. 247. Hatchell v. Lord Cremorne Ll. & g. temp. Pl. 236. Saunders v. Leslie 2 Ball & Bea. 509. Loft......
-
Eyre v Everett
...[383] In support of the equitable claim to relief, the counsel for the Plaintiff cited Ex parte Mure (2 Cox, 63), Price v. Williams (1 Sim. & Stu. 581), Law v. The East India Company (4 Ves. 824). August 7. The Lord Chancellor [Eldon]. Assuming that at a particular time Everett, Walker, and......
- Marriott v The Anchor Reversionary Company Ltd