Browne v Savage
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 June 1859 |
| Date | 11 June 1859 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 62 E.R. 244
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 5 Jur. (N. S.) 1020; 7 W. r. 571. See Newman v. Newman, 1885, 28 Ch. D. 674; Low v. Bouverie [1891], 3 Ch. 99. Followed, Lloyd's Bank v. Pearson [1901], 1 Ch. 865. See In re Dallas [1904], 2 Ch. 400.
Notice. Trustee. Assignor. Assignee.
244 BROWNE V. SAVAGE 4DBEWKT.63S. [635] browne v. savage. June 11, 1859. [S. C. 5 Jur. (K S.) 1020; 7 W. B. 571. See Newman v. Newman, 1885, 28 Ch. D. 674; Low v. Bmiverie [1891], 3 Ch. 99. Followed, Lloyd's Bank v. Pearson [1901], 1 Ch. 865. See In re Dallas [1904], 2 Ch. 400.] Notice. Trustee. Assignor. Assignee. Although, as a general rule, notice to one of several trustees is a notice to all, yet where one of such trustees was also a beneficiary, and assigned his beneficial interest in the trust fund to a stranger: Held, that the notice acquired by such trustee, as assignor, did not constitute notice to the trustees, so as to prevail over subsequent incumbrancers, it being the interest of such trustee, as assignor, to conceal the assignment; but that where such trustee assigned his beneficial interest to one of his co-trustees the notice which that co-trustee acquired, as assignee, constituted, during his life, notice to the trustees, it not being his interest, as assignee, to conceal the assignment, and therefore that it prevailed over subsequent incumbrancers with notice. This suit was instituted for the purpose of having the several priorities of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as incumbrancers, determined by the Court; and the questions which arose were whether the fact of one of several trustees being himself in one case the assignor and in the other the assignee of the fund constituted such a sufficient notice to the trustees of that fund as would, in the absence of any further notice to the trustees, give priority over subsequent incumbrances. Francis Broderip, one of the Defendants, being possessed of 150 Belgian bonds, of the value, in the whole, of 150,000 francs, and desiring to settle them upon his cousin, Charlotte Mary Savage, on the 9th day [636] of December 1854, executed a declaration of trust, whereby it was declared that Francis Broderip, William Broderip and Eobert Savage (three of the Defendants), should stand possessed of the Belgian bonds, upon trust to pay the dividends and annual produce thereof to Charlotte Mary Savage during her life, and after her decease should stand possessed of one equal third part or share in the same Belgian bonds, and the dividends and annual produce thereo'f, in trust for the Defendant, Robert Savage the younger, for his own benefit; and that they should stand possessed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willes v Greenhill
...Cockerell (9 Bligh, N. S. 332, on appeal, 3 Cl. & Fin. 456) ; Loveridge v. Cooper (3 Russ. 30) Dearie v. Hall (Id. 1); Brmvne v. Savage (4 Drew. 635; S. C. 5 Jur. N. S. 1020); Myall v. Rolk (1 Atk. 164 ; S. C. 1 Ves. sen. 348) ; Stevens v. Savage (1 Ves. jun. 154) ; Pwrdew v. Jackson (1 Rus......
-
Equitable Security Interests: Their Creation and Priority
...137; Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Nationwide Credit Corporation Ltd [1994] Ch. 49. (4) [ 1893] AC 369, 382, 394-395. (5) (1859) 4 Drew. 635; 62 ER 244. (6) [1904] 2 Ch. 385. (7) [1901] 1 Ch. 865. (8) [1995] 2 WLR 94, 103H. (9) [1995] 2 WLR 94, 104D. (10) See Meagher, Gummow and Lehane, 'Equit......