Younghusband v Gisborne
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1846 |
| Date | 01 January 1846 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 63 E.R. 1036
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 10 Jur. 834. See Bagnall v. Carlton, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 132.
1036 YOUNGHUSBAND V. GISBOKNE 1DE G.& SM. 209. [209] younghusband v. gisbokne. July 3, 1846; March 10, 1847. [S. C. 10 Jur. 834. See Bagnall v. Carlton, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 132.] Judgment debt, payable at a future day, and subject to be defeated in the event of the previous death of the debtor, held to be a charge, under the 1 & 2 Viet. c. 110, s. 13, upon an annuity bequeathed to the debtor, and payable out of real estate, but not so as to affect growing payments accruing due before the judgment debt became payable. This was the petition of two judgment creditors of J. W. Astley (to whom an annuity was bequeathed by the testator in the cause), claiming under a special direction in the decree to have their debts paid out of the annuity. The debts arose under the following circumstances :- By an indenture of the 10th of March 1840 J. W. Astley, for valuable consideration, covenanted with one of the Petitioners and two other covenantees, who had since died, to pay the covenantees 6000 on March 10th, 1847, unless the covenantor should previously die. Contemporaneously with his deed, and as part of the same transaction, the covenantor gave the covenantees a warrant of attorney to confess judgment in the sum of 10,000, subject to defeazance if the sum of 6000 should not become payable, or upon payment within three months after it should become payable, and with a declaration that no execution should issue until default should be made in payment of the 6000 if and when it should become payable. On February 6th, 1841, J. W. Astley, for valuable consideration, covenanted with both the Petitioners and another person, since deceased, to pay the covenantees 1500 on February 6th, 1848, unless he should previously die, and at the same time executed a warrant of attorney for securing the 1500^ with a defeazance in the event of the sum being paid or becoming not payable. Judgments were entered up upon both warrants of attorney, and registered. In May 1842 J. W. Astley took the benefit of the Act 1 & 2 Viet. c. 110. In 1835 he became entitled to an annuity or rent-charge of 400 per annum, under the will of the testator in the cause, dated the 17th June 1823, whereby the testator gave [210] certain real estates to trustees, upon trust, to levy and raise yearly during the life of J. W. Astley, and pay to him an annuity or yearly sum of 400. The present suit was instituted by the assignees under J. W. Astley's insolvency against the parties interested under the will, for the purpose of having the annuity secured to the assignees. The cause was heard on the 7th of August 1844, when a question arose as to the effect of the will in preventing the annuity from passing to the assignees. The arguments and decisions are reported by Mr. Collyer (1 Coll. 401). By the decree the trustees were directed to pay the annuity with the arrears thereof from the 24th of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krasner v Dennison and Others Lawrence v Lesser
...the case of a married woman's separate property: Brandon v Robinson (18) Ves. 429; Graves v Dolphin 1 Sim.66; Younghusband v Gisborne (1844) 1 Coll. 400. It is contrary to the policy of the law in this country that property should be settled so as to continue in the enjoyment of a bankrupt ......
-
Presant v Goodwin
...1 Swan. 35; Leech v. Kilmorey, 1 Turn. & Euss. 207; Webb v. Kelly, 9 Sim. 469; Lockh&rt v. Hardy, 9 Beav. 349 ; Younghusband v Gisborne, 1 Coll. 400; Gough v. Bull, 16 Sim. 45; Lewes v. Lewes, 16 Sim. 266; Lord Lonsdale v Countess of Berchtolet, 3 Kay & J. 185. Dr. Swabey and Mr. G. L Russe......
-
Penny v Avison
...which is invested on mortgage, and on the money from the interest thereon which has been paid into Court: Younghusband v. Gfisborne (1 De G. & Sm. 209), Russell v. M'Culloch (1 Kay & J. 313). [535] 3. The charging orders, though not yet made absolute, entitle us to an injunction to restrain......
-
Holmes v Penney
...Crowhurst (Id. 642), Rippon v. Norton (2 Beav. 63), Page v. Way (3 Id. 20), Lord v. Bunn (2 Y. & C. C. C. 98), Younghusband v. Gisborne (1 Coll. 400), Kearsley v. Woodcock (3 Hare, 185), Wallace v. Anderson (16 Beav. 533). Mr. Willcock, Q.C., and Mr. Bevir, for the wife and children of C. J......