Alderson v White
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 January 1858 |
| Date | 14 January 1858 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 44 E.R. 924
BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD CRANWORTH.
S. C. 3 Jur. (N. S.), 316; 4 Jur. (N. S.), 125; 6 W. R. 242. See Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Company v. New Century Wagon Company, 1888, 13 App. Cas. 568. Approved, Bhaywan Sahai v. Bhagwan Din, 1890, L. R. 17 Ind. App. 98.
[97] alderson v. white. Before the Lord Chancellor Lord Cranworth. Jan. 12, 13, 14, 1858. [S. C. 3 Jur. (N. S.), 316 ; 4 Jur. (N. S.), 125 ; 6 W. R. 242. See Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Company v. New Century Wagon Company, 1888, 13 App. Gas. 568. Approved, BhaywanSahaiv. Shag-wan Din, 1890, L. R. 17 Ind. App. 98.] A. conveyed a life-estate to B. in consideration of 4739. By a deed of even date B. contracted that if A. should at any time desire to repurchase the life-estate for 4739, B. would reconvey it to him for that sum. All the expenses of this transaction were paid by A. B. took possession, insured A.'s life for 4739, and after payment of premiums, the surplus rent was between 6 and 6, 10s. per cent, on the purchase-money. B. left a will, by which he spoke of the life-estate a redeemable on payment of 4739 and interest, and spoke of his interest as a security. A., after a lapse of nearly thirty years, and many years after the death of the solicitor who conducted the transaction, filed a bill to redeem, and failed in proving by direct evidence that the parties intended a mortgage. Held, reversing the decision of the Court below, that the transaction was to be treated as a conditional sale, and not as a mortgage, and that A. had no right to an account of rents and profits. Semble, that his right to repurchase on the payment of the full sum of 4739 was not barred by the Statute of Limitations. Whether the Statute of Limitations was not an answer to the claim to redeem on the footing of the transaction being a mortgage, qucere. Held, that if the transaction, 2DEO. ftJ.98. ALDERSON V. WHITE 925 considered as a purchase, had been so grossly oppressive, that the Court would on that ground have treated it as intended to be a mortgage, the right to have it so treated would not have been enforced after such a lapse of time and after the death of the other parties concerned in the transaction. This was an appeal by the Defendants from a decree of Vice-Chancellor Stuart, giving the Plaintiff liberty to redeem a life interest in an estate called the Cumber-wood estate, on the footing that a transaction of 1825 was to be treated as a mortgage, and not as an absolute sale subject only to a right of repurchase. In 1825 David Newman was entitled for life to the Cumberwood estate, part of which was freehold, and the rest renewable leasehold for years determinable on lives. By indentures of lease and release, dated 29th and 30th July 1825, in consideration of 4739 he conveyed all his interest to John Crump, in terms purporting an absolute conveyance of his life interest. There was nothing peculiar in the form of this deed, and it is therefore considered unnecessary to state it more in detail. On the same 30th July another indenture between Crump and Newman was executed. This deed recited a contract by [98] Newman to sell to Crump his life interest in the Cumber-wood estate, and the above conveyance, and that it had been agreed that in case Newman should be desirous to repurchase the premises at or upon the 25th of March in any year, at the sum of 4739, and should give a year's previous notice in writing to Crump, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and at the expiration of such notice should pay to Crump, his heirs, &c., the said sum of 4739 as the purchase-money for the said estate, then Crump, his heirs, &c., should accept the sum of 4739 as and for the repurchase of the estate, together with such sums as he should pay for landlord's repairs or renewing the leasehold part of the estate, and should thereupon execute a conveyance to Newman accordingly. The operative part of this deed was a covenant by Crump to the effect of the contract expressed in the last recital, and need not be set out. The expenses incident to the preparation and execution of these deeds were paid out of the 4739. It appeared that Newman, at the time of this transaction, was about twenty-six years of age, and in embarrassed circumstances, having granted annuities which nearly absorbed the income of his property. He first applied to Crump for a loan of 4739 to enable him to repurchase these annuities, and his evidence was positive that Crump assented to this, and that he himself always understood the transaction to be a mortgage transaction. Crump's representatives, on the other hand, alleged that Crump refused to lend that sum, but agreed to give it as the consideration for the absolute purchase of the life interest. The annuities were repurchased out of that sum, and the estate thus freed from incumbrances. Crump entered into receipt of the rent of the property, which at that time was let for 410 a year, and afterwards for more ; the average rent being about 426. In August 1825 and [99] June 1826, Crump effected two policies on the life of Newman for 2000 and 2730. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- P & O Banking Corporation Ltd, The; Seah Eng Lim
- Ban Hin Lee Bank Ltd; Tan Hin Choon and Others
-
Tan Hin Choon and Others v Ban Hin Lee Bank Ltd
...reject it although some attempt was made in argument to invoke the Limitation Act indirectly, by reference to dicta in Alderson v White 44 ER 924 where Lord Chancellor Cranworth thought it unnecessary to decide the question on the Statute of Limitations. It is noteworthy that the Lord Chanc......
-
Beconwood Securities Pty Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited
...WORDS AND PHRASES – charge – credit risk – margin – mortgage – repo – securities lending Alderson v White (1858) 2 De G & J 97 [44 ER 924] Associated Alloys Pty Ltd v ACN 001 452 106 Pty Ltd (in liq) (2000) 202 CLR 588 Bevill, Bresler & Schulman Asset Management Corp v Spencer Savings & Loa......