Cheval v Nichols. in Scaccario
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 93 E.R. 768
COURTS OF CHANCERY, KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
cheval vera. nichols. in scaccario. 2 Eq. Abr. 63, e. 7, S. C. Annuity granted out of lands lying in Middlesex; A. hath notice of this grant, and then purchases the inheritance of the lands; the grantee shall have his annuity against A. though his grant was not registered (1). One John Hall was possessed of a term for years in certain lands lying in the county of Middlesex, and granted an annuity of 401. to the plaintiff to be issuing out of the lands. The defendant being concerned for this Hall in the management of some of his affairs, knew that Hall had granted this annuity to the plaintiff, and had seen the deed, and paid him part of the annuity upon Hall's account: afterwards Hall purchases the reversion of these lands, and then the defendant purchases the term and the reversion of Hall. Hall dies, and the defendant refused to pay the plaintiff his annuity, because the deed by which Hall had granted it was not registered according to the statute 7 Ann. c. 20, which requires that all deeds or conveyances of, and all incumbrances upon, lands lying in the county of Middlesex, shall be registered within such a time at the office; otherwise every such conveyance shall be void against any subsequent purchaser for a valuable consideration. The defendant therefore insisted that he was a subsequent purchaser for a valuable consideration, and that the plaintiffs claim of an annuity could not affect him, because it was not registered. The whole Court were clearly of opinion, that the plaintiff was intitled to have his annuity out of these lands against the defendant, notwithstanding this statute. For the statute only intended to give such notice of former incumbrances to purchasers...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe on the demise of Robinson against Allsop
...known to the subsequent purchaser. This, therefore, is not within the mischief intended to be remedied by the Act. In Cheval v. Nichols (1 Str. 664), this was the view taken by the Court of the Act. And in Worsley v. Demattos (1 Burr. 467), Lord Mansfield puts the case of the subsequent pur......
-
Re Estate of Huthwaite v
...Chan. Rep. 39. M'Leod v. Drummond 17 Ves. 152. Watkins v. CheekENR 2 Sim. & St. 199. Davis v. Strathmore 16 Ves. 428. Cheval v. NicholsENR 1 Str. 664. Latouche v. Dunsany 1 Sch. & Lef. 137. Biddulph v. St. John 2 Sch. & Lef. 521. Beere v. HeadENR 3 Jo. & Lat. 340. Latouche v. O'BrienUNK 10 ......
-
Beere v Head and Others
...7 Vin. Abr. 53. Davis v. Stratmore 16 Ves. 419. Willis v. BrownsENR 10 Sim. 148. Le Neve v. Le NeveENR 3 Atk. 646. Cheval v. NicholasENR 1 Str. 664. Doe v. Routledge Cowp. 712. Wanleyn v. De Mattos 2 Ken. 226. Malins v. Freeman 6 Scott, 187. Davis v. BryanENR 6 B. & C. 651. Measter v. Gille......