And  the  Vice-chancellor  held,  that  from  that  date  the  purchaser  became  en-
titled to  it,  and  that  the  subsequent  death  of  the  annuitant  in  October,
1820,  did  not  prevent  the  purchaser  from  having  a  specific  performance  ;
and  for  this,  Mortimer  v.  Capper,^  Jackson  v.  Lever,'  Coles  v,  Trecothick,*
were  cited.
But  here  in  the  correspondence  we  find  no  such  arrangement  till  the
assignment  of  the  28th  of  February.  The  offer  which  is  stated  by  Mr.
Strickland's  agent,  Mr.  Cockney,  in  the  letter  of  31st  January,  1849,  is  for
the  purchase  of  the  annuity  "to  be  completed  next  April,  after  the  current
half-year's  annuity  is  paid,  and  the  legacy  duty  then  payable  satisfied,  and
the  future  legacy  duty  allowed  for  ;"  and  he  adds,  that  his  client  will  bo
prepared  to  do  this  on  the  30th  of  April,  unless  they  can  agree  for  an  ear-

1  6  Mada.  857.  «  1  Bro.  C.  C.  156.
»  8  Bro.  C.  C.  604.  *  9  Ves.  234.
SECT.  I.]  GURNET  V.   WOMERSLEY.  363

lier  day  of  pajrment,  and,  so  to  speak,  to  discount  the  payment  of  the  30th
of  April  on  that  earlier  day.
