Page images


[ocr errors]

Queen by paying 1,000l. into the Exchequer; and got a release and pardon for the residue : and in the pardon it was recited, for the maintenance of the prerogative, that the law was with the Queen.

58. Where a person is an accountant to the Crown, and sells his lands, not being indebted to the Crown at the time of the sale, yet if he afterwards becomes indebted to the Crown, in his situation of accountant,

his lands may be seised by the Crown, in consequence Tit. 1.8 74. of the stat. 13 Eliz. in the hands of the purchaser. Coke's Case, 59. Sir C. Hatton being remembrancer, and col. Godb. 289. lector of the first fruits, for his life, after the death or

surrender of one Godfrey, who then held that office in possession ; and being seised in fee of divers manors, settled them to the use of himself for life, remainder to his son in tail. He afterwards became indebted to the Crown by reason of his office; and the ques

tion was, whether the lands thus settled could be ex. 10 Rep. 55 b. tended for the debt. It was resolved that although

Sir C. Hatton was not indebted to the Crown at the time when he made the settlement, yet having become indebted to the Crown ten years after, the lands comprized in the settlement were liable, by reason of the retrospect of the words in the stat. 13 Eliz. "as if the same treasurer, receiver, &c. had, the day he first became accountant, stood bound by writing obligatory, having the effect of a statute staple to her Majesty, her heirs or successors, for

payment of the same.” Coxhead's 60. An alienation bona fide, prior to the acceptCase, Moo.

ance of an office, which renders the person accepting an accountant to the Crown, is good. And it was

said arguendo in a subsequent case, that if a man is Att. Gen. a receiver to the King, and not indebted, but clear, v. Alston, 2 Mod. 247. and sells his land, and ceases to be a receiver ; and


afterwards is appointed to be a receiver again, and then a debt is contracted with the Crown, the former sale is good.

61. It has been stated that an assignment of a term The Crown for years, by a person indebted to the Crown, before entitled to a

Term atany execution awarded, is good. But this doctrine tendant.

Tit. 8. c. 2. does not apply to terms for years which are attend.

Ø 22. ant on the inheritance; for in that case, if the King Nichols v.

Howe, extends the inheritance, he will become entitled to

2 Vern. 389. the term. 62. Colonel Montresor being seised in fee of a Rex v.

Sunith, in freehold estate, and there being an old term for years Schach. in the lands outstanding, which was assigned to attend An. 1804. the inheritance, sold the estate, 1795, to Mr. Smith; Vend. 3d ed. and the term was assigned to a trustee for him. At 596. the time of this sale Col. M. was indebted to the Crown, but Smith had no notice of that circumstance when he purchased. The Crown issued an extent against Col. M., and the sheriff seised the lands

purchased by Smith. A question arose in the Exchequer, whether the outstanding term, which was held in trust for Smith, should protect him against the claim of the Crown.

The Lord Ch. Baron said, that the case that came nearest to this was that of the Att. General v. Sands, Tit. 12. c. 2. where it was resolved, that as the inheritance was not forfeited, the term was not forfeited; for being a term attendant, it was but an accessary to the inheritance. If the converse of this case was considered, it would make it still more clear; if the inheritance had been forfeited, the term must have been forfeited also. In deciding according to the course of the common law, he thought it clear that an outstanding term could not defeat the King's process by extent. In courts of equity, it was said, Vol. IV.


$ 28.

a purchaser without notice was a person favoured: perhaps it might be a sufficient answer to say, that in this case they were not in a court of equity. The question was, what ought to be the decision of a court according to the common law ? This question could not be decided in a court of equity; they could not sue for a decree. When a court of equity was re

sorted to, and this was the situation of the parties, Tit. 12. c. 13. the Court did nothing but stand neuter between § 34.

such parties; and leave them to make the most of it. He thought, on the whole, the land was chargeable that had been in the hands of the King's debtor : and from the cases that had been decided, it was sufficiently clear that the term was ; it was the whole interest in the land, whether it was divided or not. Now that being so, it should seem to be the result of what was to be found in the Books, that of the King's common law remedy, it was impossible to doubt, and that remedy was given in every case where the party who was indebted to the Crown had a present bene. ficial interest, as well as a reversion ; both of these were considered as chargeable for the debt of the Crown. The lands of the King's debtor might be extended by the Crown, in whatever hands they were found; and therefore, upon the whole, the judgment must be for the Crown.




What Deeds are void as to Creditors and Purchasers.

1. Statutes in favour of Credi- 31. And Conveyances with Power tors and Purchasers.

of Revocation. 3. What Deeds are void by these 39. Who are deemed Purchasers. Statutes.

45. Voluntary Conveyances bind4. Deeds made with an Intent

ing on the Parties. to defraud Creditors. 49. And good as to subsequent 9. Or to defraud Purchasers.

voluntary Deeds. 12. Notice is immaterial.

51. And also as to Wills. 15. Voluntary Conveyances void 54. Provisoes in favour of Deeds against Creditors.

made on good Considera18. Except where the Grantor is

tion. not indebted at the Time. 57. Settlements before Marriage. 23. Voluntary Conveyances void 67. How far the Consideration of against Purchasers.

Marriage extends. 28. Though with Notice.

72. Settlement by a Widow on

her Children.


BY the statute 13 Eliz. c. 5. § 2. made per. Statutes in petual by stat. 29 Eliz. c. 5. it is enacted, that all favour of Cre

ditors and and every feoffment, gift, grant, alienation, bargain, Purchasers. and conveyance of lands, tenements, and hereditaments, goods and chattels, or of any lease, rent, or other profit or charge out of the same, shall be deemed and taken, only as against person or persons, their heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, whose actions by such covenous or fraudulent devices, shall be in any wise disturbed, hindered, or defrauded, to be void and of

none effect; any pretence, colour, feigned consideration, expressing of use, or other matter or thing, to the contrary.

2. By the stat. 27 Eliz. c. 4. § 2., made perpetual by the stat. 30 Eliz. c. 18, it is enacted, « That all and every conveyance, grant, charge, lease, estate, incumbrance, and limitation of use or uses of, in, or out of any lands, tenements, or other hereditaments whatsoever, for the intent and purpose to de. fraud and deceive such person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, as shall purchase the same lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or any rent, profit, or commodity in or out of the same, shall be deemed and taken, only as against that person and persons, bodies politic or corporate, his and their heirs, successors, executors, administrators, and assigns, and against all and every other



persons, lawfully having or claiming by, from, or under them, which shall so purchase, for money or other good consideration, the same lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or any rent, profit, or commodity in or out of the same, to be utterly void, frustrate, and of

none effect.” What Deeds

8. With respect to the deeds which are rendered are void by void by these statutes, as against creditors or purthese Sta

chasers, they are of two sorts : 1st, Deeds made with an express intent to defraud creditors, or subsequent purchasers. 2d, Deeds made upon good, but not

valuable considerations, which are usually called volun$ 53.

tary conveyances. Deeds made

4. As to deeds made with an express intent to defraud with an In- creditors, no doubt can arise respecting their nullity tent to defraud Credi- under the statute 13 Eliz. whenever such an intent

can be proved ; even though they should be made for a valuable consideration.


ante, c. 2.


« PreviousContinue »