Daines v Heath
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 January 1847 |
| Date | 29 January 1847 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 136 E.R. 376
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 16 L. J. C. P. 117; 11 Jur. 185.
[938] daines 11. heath. Jan. 29, 1847. [S. C. 16 L. J. C. P. 117; 11 Jur. 185.] By indenture dated the 17th of November, 1845, reciting that A. was indebted to B. in 1001., A. assigned to B. all the goods, fixtures, tools, &c., which then were, or at any time during the continuance of that security should be, in and upon certain premises, to have, receive, and take the said goods, &c., thereby assigned, as per schedule, unto B. &c. The deed contained a covenant by A. for payment of the 1001. on the 8th of February, 1846, with interest thereon from the 8th of August preceding:-Held, that a mortgage stamp on the deed, applicable to a sum not exceeding 1001., was sufficient.-Held, also, that, in an action of covenant, for nonpayment of the money, B. was not bound to produce the schedule. Covenant, on a bill of sale, by indenture, made to secure the payment of 1001. and interest on a certain day. Breach, non-payment. .SC.B.939. DAINES,V. HEATH 377 Pleas-first, non est factum-secondly, that the deed was obtained by fraud and eovin. At the trial before Coltman, J., at the last Essex assizes, the plaintiff produced the .indenture, which bore date the 17th of November, 1845, and began by reciting that 1001. were due from the defendant to the plaintiff for certain fixtures, stock, &c., sold and delivered, and then proceeded to state that the defendant did by those presents bargain, sell, assign, transfer, and set over, unto the plaintiff, &c., all and every the goods, fixtures, tools, utensils, implements, and things which then were, or at any time during the continuance of the security thereby made, should be, in, upon, about, or belonging to the workshops, outhouses, yards, dwelling-houses, and premises, situate, &c., to have, receive, and take the said goods, fixtures, tools, utensils, implements, and things thereby assigned, as per schedule, unto the plaintiff, &c. Then followed a covenant for payment of the 1001. on the 8th of February, 1846, with interest thereon from the 8th of August preceding. The deed was stamped with a 30s. stamp. For the defendant, it was objected that the deed was insufficiently stamped, and that it could not be read with-[939]-out the schedule. The learned judge overruled the objections, and the plaintiff had a verdict for 1041. 10s. 8d., subject to the opinion of the court upon the sufficiency of the stamp, and upon the necessity of giving the schedule in evidence. . Badeley, in Michaelmas term last, moved accordingly. The stamp was insufficient to cover the interest accrued prior to the date of the deed, which had then become principal. In Dickson v. Oass (1 B. & Ad. 343), a bond was given for 20001., the condition of which, after reciting that A. B. had opened an account with D., E., F., and G-., as bankers, and that the bankers had agreed to discount bills, and pay in advance, for A. B., any sum not exceeding 10001. in the whole, was, that A. B. and C. should satisfy and pay the bankers all such sums as they should advance on account of the discounting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edward Simons and Hill Top Corporation v Accountant General 1997 Civil Jur. No. 270
... ... Ltd v StanleyELR [1908] 2 KB 89 Denn d Manifold v DiamondENR (1825) 4 B & C 243 Daines v HeathENR (1847) 3 CB 938 Morley v Hall (1834) 2 Dowl 494 Partington v A.G. (1869) 4 ... ...
-
Havilogistic
...a_ strict interpretation and should not be allowed to operate as a charge unless the words are plain and unambiguous: Daines v Heath (1847) 3 CB 938. The party who seeks to bring an instrument within the Stamp Act must show clearly that it falls within it, and no intendment can be favour of......
-
STAMP DUTY IMPLICATIONS IN AN ‘OPEN’ OR ‘ALL MONIES’ MORTGAGE
...stamp duty of $500.00 has been paid, this Section too should cease to be applicable. 23. [1896] 2 QB. 187. See also Daines v Heath(1847) 3 CB. 938; Denn d Manifold v Diamond(1825) 4 B. & C. 243; Hennel v I.R.C.[1933] 1 K.B. 415. 24. ibid., at p. 193. 25. Thus for example, if the mortgage in......