Murphy v Taylor

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 20 November 1850
• Court: Court of Chancery (Ireland)
• Date: 20 November 1850

Chancery.

MURPHY

and

TAYLOR.

Walker v. WalkerENR 2 Atk. 99.

Baker v. WindENR 1 Ves. sen. 160.

Spurgeon v. CollierENR 1 Eden, 55.

England v. CodringtonENR 1 Eden, 169.

Vernon v. BethellENR 2 Eden, 110.

Maxwell v. Mountacute Prec Chan. 526.

Jennings v. Ward 2 Ver. 520.

Goddman v. GriersonUNK 2 Ball & B. 274, 279.

Williams v. OwenENR 5 My. & Cr. 305, 307.

Irnham v. ChildENR 1 Bro. C. C. 92.

Portmore v. MorrisENR 2 Bro. C. C. 119.

Lawson v. LaudeENR 1 Dick. 346.

Rich v. JacksonENR 4 Bro. C. C. 514.

Clowes v. HigginsonENR 1 V. & B. 524.

Higginson v. Clowes 15 Ves. 516.

Lord Townsend v. Stangroom 6 Ves. 328.

Joynes v. StathamENR 3 Atk. 388.

Woollam v. Hearn 7 Ves. 211.

Barrell v. SabineENR 1 Vern. 268.

Walker v. WalkerENR 2 Atk. 99.

Buxton v. ListerENR 3 Atk. 383.

Webber v. FarmerENR 4 Bro. P. C. 170.

Langton v. HortonENR 5 Beav. 9.

Goodman v. Grierson 2 B. & Bea. 279.

Copplestone v. Foxwell Freem. 150.

Verner v. Winstanley 2 Sch. & L. 393.

92 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1850. Chancery. MURPHY v. TAYLOR. Nov. 4, 7,20. A, for an ex- BY indenture made on the 29th of July 1845, between the plaintiff pressed con sideration of Peter William Murphy of the one part, and the defendant Despard £144, by deed of assignment, Taylor of the other part, reciting that the former had effected a absolute in its form, assigned policy of assurance with the. London, Edinburgh and Dublin Assur to B a life po- licy of assur- ante Company, and had agreed to assign it to the latter " in consi- ance for £999 The did deration of the sum of £144, to be paid to" the plaintiff by the deed not contain clause defendant, it was witnessed that, in pursuance of the agreement any authorising B and in consideration of the said sum of £144 to the plaintiff in to sue upon the policy, hand paid by the defendant, the receipt of which was thereby which was of doubtful vali- acknowledged, the plaintiff thereby gave, granted, bargained, sold, dity, in the name of A, assigned and made over to the defendant, his executors, adminis-Contempo raneously with trators and assigns, the policy and all monies and all manner of the assignment A executed to benefit arising therefrom, interest, advantage, profit and emolument, B a bond, con for- which had arisen or accrued, or should thereafter arise or accrue ditioned payment of the of £144, therefrom : to have and to hold the policy and all monies, benefit, stun with interest. profit and advantage which had arisen or might thereafter arise The actual consideration therefrom, to the defendant, his executors, administrators and of the assign ment and bond assigns for ever, as his or their proper monies or chattels, to have was the same sum of £144, and receive from the Insurance Company as well the full amount and consisted partly of a assured by the policy, as also all sums of money as should be paid prior debt due by A to B at the death of Matthew Rogers (the person thereby assured) upon in respect of some bills of foot of the policy. This indenture also contained covenants by the exchange dis- plaintiff that he had good right to assign, and that the policy was counted for A by B, nearly amounting to a sum of £119, and the, residue consisted of £25 cash, of which £20 were paid by B to A, and the remaining £5 were retained by B and handed by him in payment of the costs of the assignment and bond to the person who prepared the same. From the time of the assignment B paid the premiums on the policy into a Savings Bank, with notice thereof to the Company, who had refused to receive them when tendered by B. On the death of the insured B, with the consent of A, sued the Company in his (A's) name, and eventually compromised the action on payment of £600 to himself (B). Held, on a bill filed by A against B, that the assignment of the policy operated by way of mortgage, and not absolutely, and that therefore A was entitled to an account in respect of the proceeds, but that B should have his costs as in an ordinary redemption suit, and also the costs of the proceedings against the Company. CHANCERY REPORTS. 93 valid and effectual, and finally a covenant by him for further assurance. Indorsed upon the deed there was a receipt for the sum of £144, signed by the plaintiff. The deed did not contain any power of attorney for the defendant to sue upon the policy in the name of the plaintiff. On the same day the plaintiff executed a common money bond to the defendant, conditioned for the payment to him of £144, with interest at the rate of £6 per cent. per annum, together with a warrant of attorney to enter judgment in the penal sum of £288. Judgment was entered upon that warrant in the Court of Queen's Bench as of Trinity Term 1845. Both those instruments were prepared by George Riddick, a solicitor's apprentice ; the bill alleged that he then was a partner of the defendant as a bill-broker ; this was not proved, but evidence was given showing that he transacted business in the same office as the defendant. The bill also alleged that George Riddick acted in the matter as solicitor for the defendant. This the defendant denied by his answer. The following letter was prepared partly in the handwriting of the plaintiff and partly in that of John Riddick (the brother of George Riddick), who on some other occasions, both in and subsequently to the year 1845, had acted as attorney and solicitor of the defendant, but deposed that upon this occasion he acted as attorney for the plaintiff:- " 29th July 1845, 99 Abbey-street. " Sin-You having passed me your bond for £144, collateral with an assignment of an insurance policy on the life of one Matthew Rogers for £999, with the London, Edinburgh and Dublin Life Insurance Company, to secure...