Churchill v Grove et Al'
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1663 |
| Date | 01 January 1663 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 22 E.R. 1142
LORD CHANCELLOR, BARON TURNER.
C. 237.-churchill v. grove et al'.(l) 14 Nov. 15 Car. 2 [1663J. On a Plea. Lord Chancellor, Baron Turner. Cognisee of an eigne statute upon account takes part of the extent in satisfaction without notice of a puisne judgment. The plaintiff, having a judgment and a mortgage, exhibits his bill against one that had a precedent statute, and against the mortgagor, to discover what was due upon the statute, and upon payment to set the statute aside. The cognizee pleaded, that he having extended the recognizance, came to an account with the mortgagor, and there being 3000 due, he purchased part of the extended lands for the same, and assigned the other part to the mortgagor, and this without notice of the plaintiff's title, and was a purchaser for a valuable consideration; and also pleaded that the plaintiff had taken the conusor of the judgment in execution thereon, and therefore the lands could not be liable during his life. On the plaintiff's part, as to the first point, it was insisted, that it did not appear that the defendant was a purchaser, there being no new money paid on the executing of the conveyance, but that coming in for the money formerly due, it was no purchase ; that it was common in equity for him, that had the subsequent judgment, to be relieved against him that had the precedent statute, upon payment of what was due ; that therefore the defendant's pretended purchase being sub-[177]-sequent to the plaintiff's judgments, ought not to affect him; that the plaintiff's judgments were on record, so every one ought to take notice of them at his peril. The defendant's counsel insisted, that it was a purchase, that the defendant had parted with part of the extended lands, which were as valuable as money, that it was the constant justice of this court, that if a purchaser bona fide did buy in any eigne statute or judgment, and there was a judgment mesne between that and his title by purchase, of which he had no notice at his purchase, that he should protect his purchase by the eigne incumbrances so bought in ; and that though at law a purchaser must at his peril take notice of a judgment because it affects the land, yet when one...
To continue reading
Request your trial