Benyon v Fitch
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 June 1866 |
| Date | 05 June 1866 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 1018
ROLLS COURT
See Earl of Aylesford v. Morris, 1872, 42 L. Ch. J. 155.
[570] benyon v. fitch. jmjw 1, 5, 1866. [See .Barf of Aylesford v. Moms, 1872, 42 L. Ch. J. 155.] A mortgage of a reversionary interest stands in the same position as a sale, and therefore to support the transaction the mortgagee must shew that he gave full value. A mortgage of a reversionary interest, depending on a gentleman dying without issue male, set aside for inadequacy of consideration, although the risk was such as not to be susceptible of accurate valuation. Loans were made to a young man on his bills at exorbitant interest, and when they were about to become due, he mortgaged his reversionary interest to secure the amount and a further advance. The mortgage being set aside for inadequacy, held that the mortgagee was entitled to the full amount of the bills and not simply to the money actually advanced on them. On setting aside the sale of a reverson for inadequacy after four years, the purchaser is not entitled to any allowance for the risk he has ran in the meantime. On setting aside the purchase of a reversion for inadequacy, the deed stands as a security for the money actually due, and if it be not paid, the bill stands dismissed, which is equivalent to a foreclosure. This bill prayed a declaration that a mortgage of a reversionary interest, dated the 26th of April 1862, ought to stand only as a security for the money actually advanced and interest, and for a reconveyance upon payment of the amount. The circumstances were these:-The Plaintiff was [571] entitled for his life, in remainder, expectant on the death of David Pugh, and in default of male issue of David Pugh, to certain real and personal estate producing an income of about 4000 a year. In October 1861 the Plaintiff, then of the age of twenty-six, had lately quitted Oxford and was in pecuniary difficulties. He applied to an intimate acquaintance to assist him in obtaining money. This friend introduced him to Collett, and Gollett introduced him to the Defendants Messrs. Fitch. In November 1861 the Defendants discounted the Plaintiff's bill for 350 at three months, and they retained 50 for interest and 50 nominally for costs. This bill became due in February 1862, and the Plaintiff was unable to pay it; the Defendants thereupon renewed it for three months, upon the Plaintiff's giving an additional bill for 150, out of which they retained 100 for discount. So that, as between these parties, the Plaintiff received only 300 in respect of his 500 bills; in addition to this the money passed through the hands of Collett, who retained a large sum nominally for his trouble. The Plaintiff unable to pay these bills and requiring a further advance, agreed to mortgage his reversionary interest to the Plaintiff, and, by an indenture dated the 26th of April 1862, and made between the Plaintiff of the one part, and the Defendants of the other part...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kevans v Joyce
...J.; before WALKER, C., and FITZ GIBBON and BARRY, L. JJ. KEVANS and JOYCE. Baker v. Monk l0 Jur. (N. S.) 624, 691. Benyon v. FitchENR 35 Beav. 570. Beynon v. CookELR L. R. 10 Ch. App. 389. Bromley v. SmithENR 26 Beav. 644. Cole v. Gibbons 3 Peere Wms. 290. Crowe v. Ballard 1 Ves. Jun. 215. ......