Barrell v Sabine
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 November 1684 |
| Date | 11 November 1684 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 23 E.R. 462
IN COURT, LORD KEEPER.
Case 263.-barrell versus sabine. 11 Novembris [1684]. In Court, Lord Keeper. What circumstances may induce the court to make an absolute conveyance redeemable or not. Upon the hearing this cause, the single question was, mortgage or no mortgage; and it being before the statute of Frauds and Perjuries, for proof of its being a mortgage, it was urged for the plaintiff, first, the over-value, viz. that it was a church/lease of £180 per ann. over and above the rent reserved and all reprises, and renewed at the time of the pretended purchase, and made up a complete term for 21 years. And Mr. Serjeant Barrett's purchase-money was but £950, of which not one penny came to the vendor's hands, but all went for discharging incumbrances, and in repairs and renewing the lease ; and that the defendant was offered much about the same time for this lease £1400. Idly. That Sabine was at the charge of the conveyance. -3dly. That Serjeant Barrell should declare, if Sabine would repay his money within a year and half, and give the Serjeant £100 for his pains, Sabine should have his estate again; and to prove that such a declaration was sufficient to make it a mortgage, they cited the cases of Cole and Martin, and Beale and Collins. On the other side it was answered, the over-value was not so great as was pretended, and that this had all the forms and steps of an absolute purchase, there being first express articles for an absolute purchase, and then a conveyance made in pursuance of those articles, and possession delivered immediately upon execution of the conveyances. [269] The Lord Keeper said, he was fully satisfied, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hussey v Domvile
...Alder v. Ward 2 Jon. & L. at p. 597. Allen v. Hilton 1 Fonbl. Treat. Eq. 432, n. Austen v. Cavendish Lyne, 118, n. Barrell v. SabineENR 1 Vern. 268. Bastin v. BidwellELR 18 Ch. D. 238. Bateman v. Murray 1 Ridg. P. C. 187. Bayley v. Corporation of Leominster 1 Ves. 476. Bayley v. Corporation......
-
Thellusson v Woodford. Woodford v Thellusson
...If this was supposed to be allowable, no person was more likely to have done it than the celebrated Mr. Hopkins. (See Hopkins v. Hopkins, 1 Vern. 268; For. 44; 1 Atk. 581; 2 Yes. jun. 719 Appendix ; 1 Ves. sen. 268 ; Mr. Sutler's note, 231; Co. Lit. 271 b.) Lord Hardwicke says, the testator......
-
Thellusson v Woodford. Woodford v Thellusson
...Ca. 1; 2 Ch. Rep. 229: 2 Freem. 72, 80; Pollexf. 104; and Lord Nottingham's MtiS. in Mr. Hargrave's possession. (2) Hopkins v. Hopkins, 1 Vern. 268; For. 44; 1 Atk. 581. Appendix to 2 Ves. jun. ; 1 Ves. sen. 268 ; Mr. Butler's note, 231; Co. Lit. 271 b. English Reports Citation: 33 E.R. 27......
-
Williams v owen
...agreement for a repurchase, not acted upon, will not of itself entitle the vendor to redeem. From the case of Ban'ell v. tiaMne- (1 Vern. 268) this appears to have been recognized as a well-known rule of equity above 150 years ago. The question always is- Was the original transaction a iion......