Bailey v Richardson

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date18 March 1852
Date18 March 1852
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 68 E.R. 711

HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY

Bailey
and
Richardson

See Hunt v. Luck [1901], 1 Ch. 49; [1902], 1 Ch. 428.

[734] bailey v. richardson. March 2, 3, 12, 18, 1852. [See Hunt v. Luck [1901], 1 Ch. 49 ; [1902], 1 Ch. 428.] A purchaser having notice that another person, or his under-tenant, is in possession of the property is not justified in presuming the possession of that person to be the possession of the vendor; but is bound to make inquiries of the person who, by himself or his under-tenant, is so in possession, or he will be deemed to have notice of the title of such person. Mortgagee purchasing an equity of redemption preserves his mortgage unmerged by taking a conveyance to a trustee, with a declaration of his intention to that effect. James Cocker, being the owner of properties at Leeds, which may be designated as Lots 1, 2 and 3, on the llth of October 1828 conveyed the legal estate in fee in Lot 2 to Jackson, by way of mortgage, for securing the sum of 800. He afterwards mortgaged all the properties, Lots 1, 2 and 3, first, on the 22d of October 1835, to Marsden, for 1950; secondly, on the 18th of June 1836, to Muson and Richardson, for indemnifying them to the extent of 2000 against liabilities they had undertaken on his account; and, thirdly, on the 6th of November 1838, to Bailey, for 800. In the mortgage to Bailey parts of the premises were described as being then in the occupation of Richardson and his under-tenants. Cocker afterwards became bankrupt; and Richardson, in whom the security created by the deed of the 18th of June 1836, and on which 1000 was represented to have been then due, had become* vested, purchased the equity of redemption from the assignees of Cocker, and took a conveyance of it, on the 13th of July 1836, to Thomas Cope, in trust for himself, reciting in the conveyance that Richardson was desirous of reserving such priority of charge as he had by virtue of the deed of the 18th of June 1836, and was, for that purpose, desirous that the equity of redemption should be conveyed to Cope; and the deed contained a proviso and declaration that the mortgage security should remain unmerged and available as a protection against all charges, if any such there were on the premises, and of which Richardson had actual or constructive notice, or otherwise. Subsequently, by a deed, dated the 3d of April 1849, Jackson's mortgage was transferred to Bailey, who thus acquired the legal estate in Lot 2, and also...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT