Wilmer v Currey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 June 1848 |
| Date | 12 June 1848 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 64 E.R. 156
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 12 Jur. 847. Considered, Beresford v. Browning, 1875, L. R. 20 Eq. 576; 1 Ch. D. 30.
156 WILMER V. CURREY 2 DE G. & SM. 347. [347] wilmee -v. cuerey. June 12, 1848. [S. C. 12 Jur. 847. Considered, Beresfwd v. Browning, 1875, L. E. 20 Eq. 576 ; 1 Ch. D. 30.] A firm of three dissolved partnership, one of them retiring; and, by the deed of dissolution, the two continuing partners covenanted for themselves, their heirs, executors and administrators, that they, or one of them, would pay to the outgoing partner certain specified sums. Held, that this only constituted a joint liability at law, and could not be otherwise construed in equity; and a demurrer to a creditors' bill filed by the outgoing partner against the executrix of one of the covenantors, who died before the other, was allowed. The bill in this case stated that, by an indenture, dated the 28th of May 1846, and made between the Plaintiff of the one part and William Currey of the other part, reciting that the Plaintiff, Wilmer Wilmer, and Benjamin Currey, the testator in the cause, and the testator's son, William Currey, one of the Defendants, had for some time carried on the profession of attornies and solicitors in partnership together ; and further reciting that it had been agreed that the partnership should be dissolved, so far as concerned the Plaintiff, from that day ; and reciting that, as the consideration to the Plaintiff to agree to such dissolution, and in order to wind up the affairs of the partnership, so far as respected the Plaintiff, and also as the consideration for his share of the debts and monies due to the partnership, it had bee'n agreed that the sum of 3222, 16s. 6d. should be-paid and secured by Benjamin Currey and William Currey, in such manner as was thereinafter expressed to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff should be freed from the debts and liabilities of the partnership. It was witnessed that each of them, the Plaintiff, the testator and the Defendant, William Currey, for himself, his heirs, executors and administrators, did thereby covenant, promise and agree with and to the others and other of them, his heirs, executors and administrators, that the co-partnership, and every part and branch thereof, should from that day be void and absolutely dissolved, so far as concerned the Plaintiff; and the Plaintiff assigned unto the testator, Benjamin Currey, and the Defendant, William Currey, their executors, administrators and assigns, all that the one-third part, share and interest of him, the Plaintiff, of and in the monies and debts belonging to the partnership, or in or to which the Plaintiff had [348] any right, title or interest, jointly with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v Tyndall
...v. HamiltonELR 4 App. Cas. 504, 545. Keightley v. WatsonENR 3 Exch. 716. Bradburne v. BotfieldENR 14 M. & W. 559. Wilmer v. CurreyENR 2 De G. & Sm. 347. Clarke v. BickersENR 14 Sim. 639. Beer v. BeerENR 12 C. B. 60. Tippet v. HawkeyENR 3 Mod. 264. Copland v. Laporte 3 Ad.& Ell. 517. Robinso......
-
Liverpool Borough Bank v Walker
...(3 Mad. 138); Gutimsh v. Cutbush (1 Beav. 184); Eastwood v. Bain (3 H. & N. 738); and relied in particular on Wilmer v. Gurrey (2 De G. & Sm. 347). Mr. Giffard and Mr. Little, for the Plaintiff's, were not called upon. the lord justice turner. I think that this demurrer was properly overrul......
-
Jones v Beach
...553). Ex parts Kendall (17 Ves. 514). the lohd justice knight bruce referred to Cornell v. Sikes (2 Euss. 191; and see Wilmer v. Currey, 2 De G. & S. 347; Crossky v. Dobsm, 2 De G. & S. 486, and cases there cited), Rawstone v. Parr (3 Russ. 539). [888] Mr. Willcock and Mr. C. Hall, for the ......