Attorney General v Wilkins
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 July 1853 |
| Date | 02 July 1853 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 1043
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 22 L. J. Ch. 830; 17 Jur. 885; 1 W. R. 472. Explained, Finch v. Shaw, 1854, 19 Beav. 507.
[285] attorney-general v. welkins. July 1, 2, 1853. [S. C. 22 L. J. Ch. 830 ; 17 Jur. 885 ; 1 W. E. 472. Explained, Finch v. fi/taw, 1854, 19 Beav. 507.] The defence of being a purchaser for valuable consideration without notice is available in equity against a legal as well as against an equitable title and also as against a charity. This was an information and bill, filed on the 16th of December 1852 by the Attorney-General, at the relation of the minister and churchwardens of the parish of East Ham, in the county of Essex, and the minister and churchwardens themselves, to enforce payment of a rent charge of £3, issuing out of lands purchased by the Defendant and his brother. By indenture dated the 28th July 1641, a rent charge or yearly sum of £3 was granted by the Countess Dowager of Westmoreland to Sir Thos. Holcroft and others, their heirs and assigns, issuing out of two several pieces of marsh land, containing each about 2^ acres, situate in Middle Marsh in the parish of West Ham, payable half-yearly 1044 ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. WILKINS 17 BEAV. 288. on Lady Day and Michaelmas, in equal portions, with powers of entry and distress, upon trust, after her decease, to pay to the minister of East Ham for the time being twenty shillings for preaching a sermon, and ten shillings to the churchwardens, that they might pay yearly five shillings to the clerk or sexton of the parish, for keeping, cleaning, and brushing the tomb of the countess and apply the other five shillings to repair it. Ultimately the rent charge became vested in Sir Jacob Jerrard Downing, who died on the 7th February 1764 without having conveyed it to new trustees. By his will, dated the 12th of August 1763, he made his wife Dame Margaret Downing his residuary devisee, and it was not now known in whom the legal estate was vested. [286] The rent charge, however, was paid by the successive owners of the land on which it was charged, down to Michaelmas 1832. By indentures of lease and release, dated respectively the 28th and 29th of January 1833, the trustees of the will of Jamea Adams (the then last owner of the land), in pursuance of a contract dated 1st November 1832, conveyed the two pieces of marsh land to "VVm. Wilkins and the Defendant Thos. Wilkins in fee. They continued seised thereof jointly, until the death of Wm. Wilkins; and Thos. Wilkins was now seised thereof jointly with his brother's devisees, but he refused to pay the rent charge. The information and bill prayed that the trusts of the indenture of 1641 might be performed and carried into execution ; that it might be declared that the charity was entitled to the rent charge, and that it might be ascertained out of what latids it was issuing and payable; that an account of what was due to the charity might be taken, and that the Defendant might be decreed to pay what should be found due for arrears, and the rent charge in future and the costs of the suit. Thos. Wilkins, by his answer, stated that neither the particulars nor conditions of sale, nor the abstract of title which was delivered to the purchasers, nor any deed or other muniment of title in their possession or power, contained any mention of or any reference to the alleged rent charge; that his brother and himself were bowl fide purchasers without notice, and that if any rent charge existed, it was fraudulently concealed from them; that no payment or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cleary v Fitzgerald
...Penny v. WattsENR 2 De G. & Sm. 501; S. C. on app. 1 Mac. & Gor. 150. Colyer v. Finch 5 H. L. Cas. 905. Attorney-General v. WilkinsENR 17 Beav. 285. Re Medewe's TrustENR 26 Beav. 588. Vanderzee v. WillisENR 3 Br. Ch. Cas. 21. Neve v. PennelENR 2 H. & M. 170. Lyster v. BurroughsUNK 1 Dr. & W......
-
Colyer v Finch
...term of 100 years, to secure the annuity to Lady Shaw, the Plaintiff can obtain no remedy. They cited Attorney-General v. Wilkins (17 Beav. 285); Worthing-ton v. Morgan (16 Sim. 547); Head v. Egertm. (3 P. Wms. 280); Warrick v. Warrick (3 Atk. 291); Jackson v. Rowe (2 Sim. & Stu. 472); Sudg......
-
Liddell v Norton
...be purchasers for valuable consideration without notice, this Court will not interfere against them, Attorney-General v. Wilkins (17 Beav. 285), or restraining them from availing themselves of the outstanding term. The length of time is not set up by the Defendants as a bar, but is relied o......
-
Brooke v Lord Mostyn
...available defence without the legal estate, and as to his priority; Joyce v. De Moleyns (2 Jones & Lat. 374); Attorney-General v. J^Ukins (17 Beav. 285); Phillips v. Phittips (31 Law J. (Ch.) 321); (heenwood v. Churchill (6 Beav. 314); Finch v. Shaw (19 Beav. 500, and 5 H. of L. Cas. 905). ......