What the memorial need not state. Persons beneficially interested in the annuity to be named in the deed and memorial. Return or re attorney given for securing it, were held to be void (a). The memorial need not state that the annuity is redeemable, nor the name of the party in whose favour the warrant of attorney is given (b), nor for what penal sum the warrant of attorney authorizes a confession of judgment (c). And no memorial is required of further securities which formed no part of the agreement on the grant of the annuity, and are in fact given subsequently (d). The 4th section of the act requires that, if the grantee of the annuity is not the person beneficially entitled to it, the name of such person shall be stated in the instrument granting the annuity, as well as in the memorial. The 6th section provides, that, if any part of the part of the con- consideration is returned or retained, or not fairly tainer of any sideration renders the annuity liable to be set aside. paid as expressed, the court in which there is any action or judgment for the annuity may set it aside, and cancel and vacate the securities. The cases on this section are very numerous (e), but the practical 89. (a) Gibbs v. Hooper, 9 Sim. the principal:-Mence v. Hammond, 6 Moore, 491; Mootham (b) Fems v. Smith, 3 B. & v. How, 7 Taunt. 596; Barber v. Gamson, 4 B. & Ald. 281; Ald. 206. (c) Barber v. Gamson, 4 B. & Girdlestone v. Allan, 1 B. & C. Ald. 281. 61, 2 Dow. & Ry. 150; Jones v. Silberschildt, 4 Bing. 26; S. C. nomine Chappell v. Silberchild, 12 Moore, 113; Finley v. Gardner, 6 B. & C. 165; S. C., 9 Dow. & Ry. 207; Gorton v. (e) The following are some of Champneys, 1 Bing. 287; S. C., (d) Ex parte Price, 3 Madd. 132; Aston v. Gwinnell, 3 You. & Jerv. 136. See, however, Earle v. Browne, 2 Per. & Dav. 393. result may be shortly stated, viz. that the whole consideration must be actually paid to the grantor or to some agent of his who is not connected with the grantee, and that the consideration must be paid by the grantee himself, or by an agent of his not connected with the grantor. The costs of preparing the securities are, indeed, paid by the grantor, but they must not be retained out of the consideration; a bill should be regularly made out and delivered to the grantor, and paid by him after he has received the consideration (a). The money may, however, be paid to a trustee for the grantor, to be by him applied in payment of the costs of the annuity-deeds and of debts due by the grantor to judgment creditors, and the surplus only to be for the grantor (b). It is not necessary, however, that money should be actually paid as the consideration for an annuity; a debt previously due by the grantor to the grantee is sufficient, and the grantee's retaining the security for the debt will not avoid the annuity (c). The 8th section of the statute renders void all contracts for the purchase of annuities by persons under the age of twenty-one years, and all attempts to confirm the same after the purchaser has attained twenty-one. But where an infant and an adult per 8 Moore, 302; Williamson v. Goold, 1 Bing. 234; S. C., 8 Moore, 109; Calton v. Porter, 2 Bing.370; S. C., 9 Moore, 703. Marsh. 407; S. C., 4 Taunt. 8. (c) Cook v. Tower, 1 Taunt. (a) Mouys v. Leake, 8 T. R. 372. 411; Hurd v. Girdlestone, 1 Annuities excepted from the provisions of the act. -those given by will or marriage settlement, or for the advance son covenanted jointly and severally for payment of an annuity, it was held that the contract might be enforced against the adult (a). The section of the act which is perhaps now the most important to conveyancers is the 10th, which exempts certain kinds of annuities from the operation of the act. For the granting and securing annuities which are not within the intention of the act is now a much more common operation than the preparation of a regular annuity-deed and memorial. The first exception in the act is of an annuity given by will or marriage settlement, or for the adment of a child. Vancement of a child; on this, it is believed, no cases have arisen. -those secured on estates of inheritance in possession of The next exception is of an annuity secured upon an estate of inheritance in possession in freehold, copyadequate value. hold, or customary land of equal or greater value than the annuity, over and above any other annuity, and the interest of any principal sum charged or secured thereon, of which the grantee had notice at the time of the grant. The "other annuity" intended by the act must be actually charged on the lands, and not merely secured by judgment (b). But whether, since the act 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110 (c), a judgment would not constitute a specific charge on the estate, within the meaning of the act, may be a question. It is immaterial whether the estate of inhe (a) Gillow v. Lillie, 1 Bing. N. C. 695; S. C., 1 Scott, 597. (b) Walford v. Marchant, 2 B. & Adol. 315. (c) Sect. 113. See infra, vol. iii. p. 228, n. (1). ritance be legal or equitable; thus, an equity of redemption is sufficient (a). And it is sufficient if the grantors have among them an estate of inheritance in possession. Thus, where there was a devise in trust for a woman for life, and, after her decease, for all her children in fee, and she and three of her six children joined in charging an annuity on threesixths of the estate, it was held that no memorial of the deed need be enrolled (b). Where an annuity was granted jointly by a principal and surety, and the annuity was secured on sufficient real estate of the surety, it was held to be within the exception, and not to require enrolment (c). And, of course, the addition of other security, as of leasehold property, will not render it necessary to enrol the security (d). And where an annuity was granted by a father and son who had a joint power of appointment over a freehold estate, and who in exercise of that power charged the annuity on the estate, no enrolment was required (e). The act also excepts annuities "secured by the actual transfer of stock in any of the public funds, (a) Amhurst v. Skynner, 12 East, 263; Tucker v. Thurstan, 17 Ves. 131; Shrapnel v. Vernon, 2 Bro. C. C. 268; Cumming v. Twysden, 12 East, 272, n. interest. cases on the old act. 137, under the old act. A rent- (b) Walford v. Marchant, 3 & Ell. 191; S. C., 3 Nev. & Man. My. & Cra. 550. (c) Darwin v. Lincoln, 5 B. & Ald. 444. (d) Ex parte Michell, 2 East, 346. (e) Halsey v. Hales, 7 T. R. 194. -those not granted for the ing money. the dividends whereof are of equal or greater value than the annuity." But if a tenant for life grants an annuity, and directs the payment of it out of the dividends, this is not within the exception, and requires enrolment (a). And where a tenant for life assigned 1507., part of the dividends, but provided that the purchaser should not receive any part of the dividends then due, but a proportionable part of the 150%., it was held that the annuity must be enrolled (b). The last exception in the act relating to ordinary purpose of rais- annuities is of "any voluntary annuity granted without regard to pecuniary consideration." In the old act (17 Geo. III, c. 36), the words "money's worth" were not found; and, therefore, where nothing was paid, it was unnecessary to enrol a memorial. Thus, the grantee giving up a business (c), or stock in trade (d), or assigning a reversionary interest in stock (e), or the dividends of stock (g), did not require (a) Hudson v. Skinner, 6 T. R. 596; Hood v. Burlton, 4 Bro. C. C. 121; S. C., 2 Ves. jun. 29; Duff v. Atkinson, 8 Ves.577; Dupuis v. Edwards, 18 Ves. 358; Cumberland v. Kelley, 3 B. & Ad. 602, all under the old act. (b) Charretie v. Vause, 1 Sim. and assigned in consideration of ing the annuity. Browne v. Like, 14 Ves. 302. (c) Crespigney v. Wittenoon, 4 T. R. 790; Hutton v. Lewis, 5 T. R. 639. (d)Id.; and Doe d. Johnstone v. Phillips, 1 Taunt. 356; Hick v. Keats, 4 B. & C. 69; S. C., 6 Dav. & Ry. 68; S. C. nom. Keats v. Hick, 5 Moore, 629. (e) Brown v. Dowthwaite, I Madd. 446. (g) Browne v. Like, 14 Ves. 302; James v. James, 2 Brod. & Bing. 702; S. C., 5 Moore, 479. |