Darcy v Hall
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1682 |
| Year | 1682 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 23 E.R. 302
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Case 48.-darcy versus hall. [1682.] Where a mortgagee buys in an incumbrance, he shall be allowed all that is due on it, tho' he bought it in for less. Otherwise, if an heir or trustee buys in an incumbrance. Where an heir or trustee buys in an incumbrance, he shall be allowed no more, than what he really pays for it (Brathwaite v. Brathwaite, post, 335. Long v. Clapton, post, 464, and cases cited in note there); unless he bought it to protect an incumbrance to which he himself is intitled : but where a stranger that has an incumbrance upon an estate buys in another security to protect his own, he shall not only hold it till he is satisfied his own debt and has reimbursed himself the money paid for the incumbrance he bought in, but even till he has received all the money and arrears of interest due on the security he so bought in. Arid in this case, though it was an heir that bought in an incumbrance (there being some special circumstances in the case) (1) he was allowed on account the whole money due on the incumbrance he bought in, though he paid less for it. (1) The circumstances to be collected from the register's book are as follows : Sanders, under whom the defendant claimed, being indebted to one Rogers in 1200, agreed in consideration thereof, to grant to him an annuity of 120 for 21 years from July 1639, and entered into a statute to secure the same, and the annuity was by deed charged on certain lands therein mentioned ; it appears that Sanders paid the annuity till Michaelmas, 1641, and that half a-year being due on Lady-day, 1642, Rogers entered, but Sanders was relieved on bill filed, and payment of the arrears, and continued to pay the annuity till his death, in 1644 ; after his death Rogers entered and received the profits, and cut down wood more than sufficient to pay the 1200, and interest. In 1653 one Lady Brett claiming an estate for life in the premises, and bringing ejectment against Rogers, they came to an agreement, whereby the said Rogers agreed to pay her 125 costs, and 50 per annum, during her life, and that the overplus of the rent above the 50 per annum, and the 125 and interest, should go in satisfaction of the annuity of 120, by which agreement and an extent therein mentioned, the bill alleged that the said (here the name is left out) had received sufficient to satisfy the said 125 and interest, and also the said annuity of 120 per annum, for the 21 years, and afterwards in 1655 conveyed the premises as therein mentioned with the defendant's privity, but certain disputes arising between the parties an agreement was entered into among them by which it was agreed on all hands that the statute was satisfied out of the arrears in the tenants' hands, and then states that certain persons, whom the plaintiffs represented having become bound for the said Sanders in his life time, and becoming creditors of him for several sums of money lent to him by them, he by deed in 1641 mortgaged to, &c., the manor of Sysam, part of the premises in question, for securing the re-payment thereof ; in which deed, and also in another executed by Sanders soon afterwards, a proviso was contained that if Sanders did not pay certain debts, and indemnify them who were so bound for him on the day, and as therein mentioned, then that they, the mortgagees, might sell the premises, and out of the money to arise by sale and the intermediate profits to retain all such sums of money as they should disburse or lay out in freeing the premises from any charges touching the said debts and premises, with interest, and out of the residue of the money pay certain scheduled debts, and it was agreed that Sanders and his heirs should, upon request, join in sale of the premises, and that the surplus of the lands or money should be conveyed or paid to Sanders, or as he should appoint. The bill then states that the mother of Sanders died in 1G62, and that Rogers thereupon extended Sysam. and received the 1 VEEN. 50...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kirkwood v Thompson
...to do so though his security is in the form of a trust for sale. Even a trustee, who is also an incumbrancer, may buy : Darcy v. Hall (1 Vern. 49); Davis v.[Barrett (14 Beav. 542). If an heir, or even a trustee, have a charge, he may buy in a prior charge for his own benefit, and charge the......
-
Wilson v Dabbs
...of the prior incumbrances, when they lent their money; and 2 Ventr. 337; 3 Chan. Cas. 36, 149, 162, 201 ; 2 Chan. Cas. 20, 208, 212 ; 1 Vern. 49, 187 ; 2 Vern. 29, 30, 160, are all cases, where mortgagees purchase in prior incumbrances ; and Finch quotes three cases in 2 Ventr. 337, and say......
-
Davis v Barrett
...a charge of his own, he must be considered as having purchased the arrears, not as heir or devisee, but as a creditor; Darty v. Hall (1 Vernon, 49). Mr. Eennells, for the mortgagor, S, G. Barrett. Mr. John Baily, for the wife and children of S. G. Barrett, argued that the statutes cited had......
-
Anonymus
...the same Reason. For Equity will take away one Man's unreasonable Gain, in order to make up another's Loss. See 1 Salk. 155; 2 Ventr. 353; 1 Vern. 49, 335, 464, and he who receives the Advantage ought to make the Satisfaction. See 1 Chan. C. 74, &c., ut supra. ...