Page images


waste committed by the tenant after the expiration of a notice to quit; and in Davies v. Cornop, 1 Price, 53, it was decided, that trover is maintainable for corn cut by an out-going tenant, after the expiration of his term, though sown by him before that time, under the notion of his being entitled to an away.going crop.



Feb. 10th. Mr. Serjeant Lens, on a foriner day in this Term, ob- Where the detained a rule, calling on the plaintiff to shew cause why surety for the the two several writs of execution issued in this cause

graptor of an

annuity, exeshould not be set aside, upon payment of the balance cuted a warrant

of attorney to due to the plaintiff, together with the costs, poundage, confess judg. officers' fees, and other incidental expenses upon such materia secucila balance only.-He founded his motion on an affidavit of for the due and

regular paythe defendant, which stated, that by an indenture of five ment of the parts, dated the 22d December, 1813, and made between ject to a defeas

annnuity, subHenry Michael Goold (the brother of the defendant), of ance, that after the first part; the plaintiff, of the second; several other should be made persons, whose names were set forth in the schedule of in payment of the said indenture, of the third part; Edward Howard, grantee might

theannuity, the of the fourth ; and Richard Cook, of the fifth part; in sue out execu

tion upon such consideration of 4,1301. by the said indenture. stated to judgment

against the defendant, for such part of the annuity as should be then due :-and the annuity being in arrear, and the rents of the estates of the grantor, on which it was originally secured, being unpaid, the agent and trustee of the estates, who negociated the annuity as between the grantor and grantee, advanced to the latter a sum of money in anticipation of the accruing rents, and deducted and retained the usual commission charged by him on the receipt and payment of annuities :-Held, that such advance must be considered as a payment made on account of the grantor, as the principal; and that on the insolvency of the latter, and the rents of his estates proving insufficient to satisfy the amount, the grantee could not resort to the defendant as his surety, to recover the whole of the arrears of the annuity then due; as whatever sum he had received from the agent on account of the annuity, operated to that extent to the extinguishment of the liability of the surety.Where, therefore, an execution was issued against the defendant, as such surety, for the whole of the arrears due from his principal (the grantor), and under which he was detained in custody, the Court ordered him to be discharged on payment into court of the balance due, after giving credit for the advance, the amount of which balance was to be ascertained by the prothonotary.


be paid to the said H. M. Goold by the plaintiff, be the WILLIAMSON said H. M. Goold granted to the plaintiff on behalf of GOOLD.

himself, and as trustee for the said other persons named in the schedule of the indenture, an annuity of 590l. English money, for the life of the said H. M. Goold, charged upon his estates in Ireland, which were by the same indenture assigned to Howard for a term of years, for the better securing the annuity : that previous to the granting of the annuity to the plaintiff, H. M. Goold had also, through the agency of Howard, or of Howard, and Gibbs, bis partner, granted annuities to a considerable amount to divers other persons, which annuities were charged upon his said Irish estates; and that Messrs. Howard and Gibbs were then, either by themselves or their agents, in receipt of the rents of all the estates in Ireland of the said H. M. Goold, and so continued until they became bankrupts in February 1821; and that Cook was appointed the receiver. That upon the granting of the annuity to the plaintiff, it was represented to the defendant that the rents of the estates of the said H. M. Goold, of wbich Messrs. Howard and Gibbs were so in receipt, were sufficient to pay as well the annuity to the plaintiff as the annuities before granted; though by reason of the former annuities having been granted, the plaintiff and the other persons then about to advance their money, would not be satisfied without a second name was given them as a collateral security.

That after paying the former annuities of H. M. Goold, the rents of his estates would extend only to pay part, and not the whole of the annuity to the plaintiff; and that the defendant was requested to become the collateral security to the plaintiff for payment of the same, and that he accordingly executed and gave to the plaintiff a warrant of attorney, bearing date the said 22d December, 1813, to confess judgment in an action of debt at the suit of the plaintiff for 8,2601, and costs of suit; and which


[ocr errors]

warrant of attorney was subject to a defeasance, that from and immediately after any default should be made WILLIAMSON in payment of the said annuity, by the said H. M. Goold,

GOOLD, his heirs, executors, or administrators, it should be lawful for the plaintiff to sue out execution upon such judgment against the defendant, for such part of the annuity as should be then due :-upon which judgment was entered up in Hilary Term, 1814. That the defendant, by an indenture of the same date, and made between the plaintiff of the one part, and the defendant of the other, covenanted with the plaintiff for payment of the said annuity upon the same contingency, and to the effect contained in the defeasance of the warrant of attorney. That on the 29th November, 1822, the defendant was taken in execution upon the said judgment, at the suit of the plaintiff, under a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum, issued out of this Court, indorsed to levy 4,4971. 10s. 9d. being the arrears of the annuity then supposed to be due to the plaintiff, besides sheriff's poundage, and other incidental expences, and that he was detained in custody under such execution, and still continued so. That the first commission of bankrupt against Howard and Gibbs was superseded, and that on the 22d August, 1821, a renewed commission was issued against them, under which three several persons were duly appointed assignees, and still continued so to be; and that the defendant, on the 230 December last, received from the solicitors of such assignees, a notice in writing, on behalf of the latter, stating that Howard and Gibbs had paid or advanced, to the several parties beneficially interested in the annuity, to levy the arrears whereof, a ca. sa. had been issued against him in this cause, several sums of money, amounting together to the sum of 3,215l. on the credit or security of the annuity, and which the assignees were therefore entitled to receive outof the said arrears; and by their direction, the soli




citors required the defeņdant not to pay any part of the said sum of 3,2131. to the plaintiff, or to any other

person, than the said assignees.—The defendant also swore, that he believed that Howard and Gibbs, so being in receipt of the rents of the estates of H. M. Goold, bave paid to their respective clients, the plaintiff, and the other persons interested in the annuity, the said sum of 3,2131. mentioned in the notice, and that Howard and Gibbs haye debited the account between them and H, M. Goold with the same; and that they have also, in their accounts with their respective clients, charged a commission for themselves of two and a half per cent. for receiving the money so paid: and that he is advised, that inasmuch as the said sum of 3,2131. has been paid in discharge of the said annuity, the defendant, as such collateral security, could only be liable to pay the balance which may remain due to the plaintiff in his own right, and as trustee for the said other persons interested in the annuity, after deducting the said sum of 3,215..; and that the money for which the defendant remains liable (exclusiye of the expenses of the executiops) amounts to no more than the sum of 1,4331. Is. 9d., in. cluding therein a quarter's annuity, which became due on the 22d Dec. last, and for which the defendant had also been taken in execution at the suit of the plaiņtiff since it became due, under another writ of capias, issued out of this Court, and indorsed to levy the sum of 148!, 11s. besides sheriff's poundage and incidental expenses; and that he is now detained in custody upon both these writs.

Mr. Serjeant Vaughan, Mr. Serjeant Pell, and Mr. Serjeant Taddy, now shewed cause on behalf of the plaintiff, on affidavits of Howard and Gibbs, which in substance stated, that the rents received by them from the grantor's estates in Ireland were not sufficient to pay the prior annạitants, and that no part of the annuity in ques


tion had been paid by the grantor as the principal, or the defendant as his surety, since December, 1814, or from WILLIAMSON the proceeds of the Irish estates , but that such annuity

GOOLD. was wholly in arrear and unpaid; and that the plaintiff and the other annaitants being extremely urgent for payments on account of the annuity, Howard and his partner Gibbs were induced to advance them various sums of money out of their own funds by way of anticipation, all of which sums were advanced on the reliance of the validity of the securities they then held; or that the arrears of the annuity would be paid either out of the proceeds of the grantor's Irish estates, or in the full confidence that they would be reimbursed the sums so advanced by them to the grantee on the additional collateral securities of the defendant, as the surety for his brother, the grantor. They admitted that they deducted and retained two and a half per cent. by way of commission, at the respective times those payments were made to the grantee, being the usual commission charged by them in cases of payments of annuities passing through their hands. That they had always acted as the agents of the grantees alone, and not of the grantor as the principal, or the defendant as his surety that they held the deeds as a security for the advances to be made by the grantor on account of the annuity; and that the sums actually advanced by them to the grantee, were only made by way of anticipation of receiving them from the grantor's estate, or under the guarantie of the defendant as his surety, for neither of whom they ever acted as agents on any account whatever. That the grantor became insolvent in 1817; and in May 1818, was discharged from prison under the insolvent debtors' act; and that all the arrears of this annuity were returned in his schedule, as a debt due to the plaintiff, and that the defendant went abroad in 1815, and did not return to this country until November last, when he was taken in execution as above stated. Under these circumstances, it was submitted, thal

« PreviousContinue »