HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0733 and id is 1 raw text is: GREGORY V. WILLIAMS
tribution of the estate among residuary legatees, if apprised that there are existing
claims to which the executors may eventually become liable, in respect of covenants
which their testator has entered into. (See Simmons v. Bolland, 3 Mer. 547.) The
Court is not administering Mr. Davidson's estate. It is not called upon to distribute
the residue, while it is uncertain whether a claim may not be made on the executor
in consequence of this bond. The executor is not seeking its protection against an
eventual legal liability. But a person, who is as yet no creditor, and who may never
become one, is claiming to force out of the hands of the executor the utmost extent
of what can ever become due. I cannot make such a decree, without laying it down
as a rule, that, whenever a person bound in an obligation of this sort dies, a court of
equity will compel his executor to bring into Court the whole amount.of the penalty
of the bond. I can find no trace of the exercise of any such jurisdiction, and therefore
must dismiss the Bill.
Bill dismissed, with costs.
(1) E. of Ranelaghv. Hayes, 1 Vern. 190; 1 Eq. Ab. 79, pl. 5. This was only
a case put by the Lord Keeper by way of analogy to the case before him, which was
that of a bill by the Earl of Ranelagh for the specific performance of a covenant to
keep harmless in respect of an assignment of shares of the Excise in Ireland, upon
which he was sued by the Crown.
(2) In a case of Kilby v. M'Adam, the circumstances of which I am not acquainted
with, and understand that it ended in a compromise.
[582] GREGORY and PARKER V. WILLIAMS. Rolls. Dec. 4-8, 1817.
[See Grundy v. Ileatheote, 1863, 1 H. & M. 175 ; Drew v. Martin, 1864, 2 H. & M.
133. Explained, In re Empress Engineering Co., 1880, 16 Ch. D. 125. See
Lloyd's v. Harper, 1880, 16 Ch. D. 315 ; Touche v. Metropolitan Railway Ware-
housing Co., 1871, L. R. 6 Ch. 677 ; In re Flavell, 1883, 25 Ch. D. 95.]
W. landlord to P., having the power to distrain for rent in arrear, and having actually
distrained for part, and being a creditor of P. for money lent, as well as for rent in
arrear, upon P.'s representing to him that he is also indebted to C. to the amount
of about £900, for which he is in fear of arrest and about to leave the country,
undertakes that if P. will give up to him the farm, and execute an assignment of
all his property, he will pay G.'s debt in the first instance, out of the proceeds,
and apply the residue in satisfaction of his own demand, and the surplus (if any)
to P., who executes a bill of sale to W. accordingly on the faith of such under-
taking. Upon the bill of G. and P., this agreement was enforced against W. to the
extent of £900, the alleged amount of G.'s debt, but no further; the actual debt
having proved to exceed that amount; and not prevented from having effect,
either by the circumstance that P.'s property fell short of the estimated amount,
or of P.'s being at the time indebted to other persons besides G. and W., which
formed no part of the consideration for the agreement, although noticed in W.'s
undertaking as having been represented otherwise. The engagement not to pay
G. in the first instance, not being made directly to G. but through the medium
of P., by whom also the consideration was furnished, P. held in a court of equity
to be a Trustee for G. But quwere, if the Plaintiffs could recover at law upon such
an agreement.
The Bill made the following case. In August 1813, the Plaintiff Gregory being
in the occupation of a certain farm as tenant to the Defendant, and having a con-
siderable farming stock and crops thereon, with the Defendant's consent gave up
the possession of the farm to the Plaintiff Parker, who thereupon agreed to give
him (Gregory) the sum of £1069, 7s. 6d. (the estimated value) as a consideration for
the stock and crops, of which he also took possession ; and, not being able to pay the
amount at the time, gave his promissory note for the same, payable on the 2d of
February 1815, [583] with interest. After this arrangement was concluded, Parker
held the farm, as tenant to the Defendant, till he quitted the same on the occasion
of his executing the bill of sale after mentioned. On the 1st of January 1815, there
being a considerable amount of rent in arrear, and Parker being moreover indebted
3 MER. 582.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0733&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)