Yates v Compton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1725 |
| Date | 01 January 1725 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 24 E.R. 743
LORD CHANCELLOR KING.
Followed, Palmer v. Craufurd, 1819, 3 Swanst. 487. Distinguished, In re Mabbett, [1891] 1 Ch. 715.
Case 87.-yates versus compton. [1725.] [Followed, Palmer v. Craufurd, 1819, 3 Swanst. 487. Distinguished, In re Mabbett, [1891] 1 Ch. 715.] Lord Chancellor King. Sel. Ca. in Ch. 54 ; 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 63, pi. 6 ; 168, pi. 20 ; 371, pi. 17; 457, pi. 2. One devises that his executors should sell his land, and leaves two executors, one whereof dies, and the other renounces, and administration is granted to A. who brings a bill against the heir to compel a sale; whether the renouncing executor in whom this power of sale collateral to the executofship was vested, ought not to be made a party 1 A. devised that his executors should sell his land in Dale, and with the money arising by that sale and the surplus of his personal estate, should purchase an [309] annuity of 100 for the life of Jane Styles, and should allow to her so much thereof as would maintain her and her children, and gave 30 to each child to be raised out of the said annuity and the personal estate he should die possessed of, and the overplus of his personal estate he gave to Jane Styles, and made B. and C. executors. The testator died, and Jane Styles the intended annuitant died within three months after him; B. and C. the executors renouncing, administration with the will annexed was granted to the plaintiff who was also the administrator of Jane Styles (the intended annuitant) and with the children of Jane brought this bill against the heir of the testator, to compel him to join in a sale of these lands in Dale. For the defendant it was objected, that there wanted parties, in regard the executors ought to have been made defendants, for notwithstanding they had renounced, yet the power of sale continued in them, and was altogether collateral to their executorship. (Vide Harg. Co. Litt. 113 a, note (2). Sugden, Powers, 107, 8 (ed. 1821). Bentham v. Wiltshire, 4 Madd. 44. Patton v. Randall, 1 Jac. & W. 189. Tylden v. Hyde, 2 S. & S. 238.) But there being only a power and no estate devised to the executors, this objection was over-ruled (tamen Q.). The plaintiff's counsel then proceeding upon the merits, it was contended on behalf of the heir, that as nothing but a bare power of sale was given to the executors, so such power was for a particular purpose, to buy an annuity for Jane Styles, and forasmuch as that purpose could...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dawson v Hearn
...is a bequest of an annuity, the legatee may take either the annuity, or a gross sum equal to the price of the annuity (Yates v. Campion, 2 P. Wms., 308; Barnes v. Rowley, 3 Ves., 305 ; Bayley v. Bishop, 9 Ves., 6 ; Palmer v. Oraufurd, 3 Swans., 482); and the principle of these authorities w......
-
Holcroft v Hoggins and Another
...Anon. Comberb. 463; Meggot v. Mills, 1 Lord Eaym. 286, 287 ; Cases temp. King, 41; Stracy v. Saunders, 7 Mod. 123 ; Colt v. Nettenill, 2 P. Wms. 308; Goddard v. Cox, Bull. N. P. 174, 2 Stra. 1194; Morgan v. Jones, 1 Brown Parl. Cases, 2nd ed. 32; Newmarch v. Clay, 14 East, 239 -f Bodenhamv.......
-
Madden v Madden
...v. Burton 14 Ves. 434. Houell v. Barnes;ENR Cro. Car. 3825. Attorney-General v. Fletcher 5 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 75. Yates v. ComptonENR 2 P. Wms. 308. Howell v. BarnesENR Cro. Car. 382. Will Power to "my executor J. L." to sell real estate Renunciation of probate Exercise of power by J. L. VOL......
-
Earl Granville v McNeile
...The authorities cited were-Case in the Year Book, 15 Hen. 7, fol. 11, b.; S. C. Appendix No. 1 to Sugden on Powers; Yates v. Comptm (2 P. Wms. 308); Keates v. Burton (14 Ves. 434); Adams v. Taunton (5 Madd. 435); Eaton v. Smith (2 Beav. 236); 2 Sugden on Powers, 138, 139. the VlOE-CHANCELLO......