Daw v Terrell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 December 1863 |
| Date | 19 December 1863 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 351
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 3 N. R. 285. See Ex parts Broderick, In re Beetham, 1886-87, 18 Q. B. D. 383, 770.
[218] daw v. terrell. Dec. 19, 1863. [S. C. 3 N. E. 285. See Ex parts Broderick, In re Beetham, 1886-87, 18 Q. B. D. 383, 770.] A. B., being entitled to three properties, the title-deeds of one of which were held by his bankara as a security, deposited the title-deeds of the other two with C. D. as a security for a debt, and he gave him an order to the bankers (written by himself, but not signed) to deliver over the deeds of the third property when their lien had been satisfied. Held, that this gave C. D. a valid equitable mortgage on the property mortgaged to the bankers. The intestate was entitled to two leases for lives of some property at Alphington, which he had deposited with his bankers Messrs. Sanders & Co. as a security for a debt. He was also entitled to a lease of property at Little Crab Marsh and Cross Park for his life. In September 1856 the intestate, being indebted to the Plaintiff Daw, agreed to secure the amount by a charge on this property, and he thereupon wrote and delivered to the Plaintiff the following memorandum :- " Messrs. Sanders & Co. will be pleased, as soon as their lien is satisfied, to deliver to Mr. Daw the assignment from Kerslake to myself of a field and garden in Alphington and Little Crab Marsh and Cross Park." "Bartholomew Yard, September 11, 1856." The memorandum was not signed by the intestate. [219] The intestate also handed over to the Plaintiff the lease of Little Crab Marsh and Cross Park, his interest in which, however, ceased on his death. The intestate died in December 1859. The debt to the bankers had been discharged, and the documents formerly held by them had been handed back to the intestate, and were now in the possession of the solicitor of his administratrix. No notice of the Plaintiffs claim appeared ever to have been given to the bankers. The suit was instituted against the administratrix and heir at law of the intestate, and the question was, whether the Plaintiff was entitled to a good equitable mortgage on the property at Alphington. Mr. Southgate and Mr. Kekewich, for the Plaintiff, argued that the deposit and memorandum were sufficient to constitute a valid equitable mortgage. They cited Digkton v. Withers (31 Beav. 423); Ex parte Arkwight (3 Mont. D. & D. 129); Ex parte Wetherell (11 Ves. 398)...
To continue reading
Request your trial