Churchill v Grover et Al
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1663 |
| Date | 01 January 1663 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 21 E.R. 797
COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 1 Chan. Cas. 35.
[89] churchill versus grover & al. Anno 15 Car. 2 [1663-64]. The Mortgagor confessed a Judgment to the Plaintiff, and had likewise acknowledged a Statute to the Defendant, 'which was precedent either to the Mortgage or Judgment. Thereupon the Plaintiff, who was the Judgment Creditor, exhibited his Bill against the Mortgagor and the Cognizee of the Statute, to have a Discovery of what was due on the Statute, and that upon Payment of the Money it might be set aside. The Cognizee pleaded, That he had extended the Land; and there being 3000 really due to him, the Cognizee, in Consideration of so much Money received, had made an absolute Conveyance of part of the extended Lands to him, and that his Debt being satisfied by that Conveyance, he had assigned the rest of the extended Lands to the Cognizor, and so he became a Purchaser of the Lands for a valuable Consideration, without any Notice of the Plaintiff's Title. He also pleaded, That the Cognizor was in Execution at the Plaintiff's Judgment, and therefore he could not extend his Lands, neither were they [90] liable to his Debt during the Life of the Cognizor. And upon arguing this Plea, it was insisted on the Part of the Plaintiff as to the first Point, That it did not appear the Defendant was a Purchaser, there being no Money paid upon executing the Conveyance, the Consideration whereof was the Money due on the Statute, and that was no Purchase; and that it was common Equity for him who had any subsequent Judgment to be relieved against any precedent Statute upon Payment of what was justly due; and that therefore the Accompt made up between the Cognizor and Cognizee on the pretended Purchase ought not to affect the Plaintiff, so that the Defendant's Purchase being subsequent to the Plaintiff's Security, ought not to be aided by the Statute, and the Plaintiff's Judgment being on Record, the Defendant was bound to take Notice of it at his Peril, and therefore ought, upon Payment of the Statute, to yield the Possession to the Plaintiff. But on the other Side it was insisted, That the Defendant was a Purchaser; and that tho' no Money was advanced on the Purchase, yet the Consideration...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Churchill v Grove et Al'
...chargeable after the death of him in execution,(3) and that therefore the defendant ought to answer and discover.(4) (1) S. cTCh. Ca. 35 ; Nels. 89! (2) Ante, c. 13, p. 13 ; Snelling v. Squib, 2 Cha. Ca. 47; Greswold v. Mar sham, ibid. 171. (3) See stat. 21 Jac. 1, c. 24 ; ante, c. 177, p. ......
-
Forth v Duke of Norfolk and Others
...by the Plaintiff were Finch v. Earl of IVinthekca (1 P. Wins. 277), Serjeant Maynant's case (2 Freeman, 1), Churchill v. Grove. (Ibid. 176; Nelson, 89), GnswoU v. Mwrsham (2 Ch. Ca. 170), Brace v. DurJiess of Marlbwotigh (2 P. Wms. 491), Buryhv. -Francis (Finch, 18), Smith v. Eaton (Ibid. 3......
-
More against Mayhow
...declared that the Plea in this Case was well enough. It was further insisted, That the Plea was founded upon the Answer, viz. That the 1 CHAN. CAS. 35. GARFOOT V. GARFOOT 681 Defendant had no Notice, &c., And that the Point of Notice was not well answered, in that the Defendant denied Notic......
-
Borre v Vande
...Factors, if the Court should give any Opinion for them in a Matter of Fraud as this was. But it was said for the Defendant, That by the Law NELSON, 89. RAYNES V. LEWES 797 and Course of Merchants, the Factors were to have the Benefit of Customs stolen, because they were liable to the Penalt......
-
Legislative History in Washington
...1, at 591-93. 6. For an example where lawyers failed to provide the court with appropriate documents of legislative history, see Lau v. Nelson, 89 Wash. 2d 772, 776, 575 P.2d 719, 722 (1978), rev'd in part, Roberts v. Johnson, 91 Wash. 2d 182, 588 P.2d 201 (1978), discussed infra, note 7. "......