|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WILLIAMS' CASE. 225
In the year 1738, in a case of bankruptcy, it appeared, that the
petitioner had, in the year 1720, paid three hundred pounds for
an annuity of thirty pounds per annum for her life, payable out of
the estate of the bankrupt. Upon her petition, to be admitted as
a creditor for the whole three hundred pounds, it was ordered that
the commissioners settle the value of her life; and that she be ad-
mitted a creditor for such valuation, and the arrears of her annuity,
it being unreasonable, that she should have the whole three hun-
dred pounds, when she had enjoyed the annuity eighteen years, (s)
The same principles are evidently as applicable to a condition of
insolvency, as to that of a condition of bankruptcy; and therefore,
to abolish a technical distinction which had been introduced by the
courts of common law in relation to insolvency, (t) it has been
recently enacted in England, that a present value shall, in all such
cases, be put upon the annuity, and the annuitant be let in to that
amount only as a creditor against the estate of the insolvent, (u)
In 1687, on a bill to be relieved against a conveyance, it ap-
peared, that the plaintiff being entitled to an estate tail, after the
death of his father, in lands which, if in possession, were worth,
to be sold, about £800, did in 1671, for £30 paid and £20 per
annum, secured to be paid to him during the lives of him and his
father, absolutely convey his remainder in tail to the defendant's
father and his heirs. The conveyance was set aside as being an
unrighteous bargain in the beginning, (to) In the year 1716, on a
bill brought to set aside a sale of a remainder, the case appeared
to be, that the plaintiff's father was tenant for life, remainder to the
plaintiff in tail, remainder over to a third person; that the plaintiff
had married, and had a son. After which the plaintiff being about
thirty years of age, and his son ten years old; and when the plain-
tiff's father was ancient and sickly and in declining life, the plaintiff
sold his estate in remainder, which was worth £150, to the defen-
dant for £1,050. The Chancellor decreed relief on the payment
of principal, interest and full costs; upon the ground, that the
amount paid for the estate in remainder dependant upon so frail a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(s) Ex parte LeCompte, 1 Atk. 251; Ex parte Belton, 1 Atk. 251; Bothomly v.
Fairfax, 1 P. Will. 334, note; Ex parte Artis, 2 Ves. 490; Ex parte Carter, 1 Bro.
C. C. 267; Ex parte Burrow, 1 Bro. C, C. 208.—(t) Cotterel v. Hooke, Doug, 97;
Webster v. Bannister, Doug. 393,—(u) 1 Geo. 4, c. 119, s. 10; 1 Petersd. Abr. 714
tote; Smith Merca. Law, 409; Ex parte Thistlewood, 19 Ves. 249; Johnson v.
Compton, 6 Cond, Cha. Rep. 20; Lyde v. Mynn, 6 Cond. Cha. Rep. 230.—(w) Nott
v. Johnson, 2 Vern. 27.
29 v.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
