Dearle v Hall; Loveridge v, Cooper
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1823 |
| Date | 01 January 1823 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 38 E.R. 475
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 2 L. J. Ch. (O. S.) 62, 75. See M'Creight v. Foster, 1870, L. R. 5 Ch. 612; ex parte Allen, 1870, L. R. 11 Eq. 211; Ex parte Rabbidge, 1878, 8 Ch. D. 370; In re Freshfield's Trust, 1879, 11 Ch. D. 198; Palmer v. Locke, 1881, 18 Ch. D. 386; West of Ebgland Bank v. Batchelor, 1882, 51 L. J. Ch. 200. Held not to apply to Shares in Companies, Societe Generate de Paris v. Tramways Union Co., 1884-5, 14 Q. B. D. 425; 11 App. Cas. 20. See Arden v. Arden, 1885, 29 Ch. D. 708; In re Richards, 1890, 45 Ch. D. 589; Ward v. Duncombe, 1893 A. C. 376; Stephens v. Green. 1895 2 Ch. 148; In re wasdale, 1899 1 Ch. 163. Lloyds Bank v. Pearson, 1901 1 Ch. 865; In re Lake, 1903 1 K. B. 153; Montefiore v. Geudalla, 1903 2 Ch. 33.
Reports of CASES ARGUED and DETERMINED in the HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY, during the Time of LORD CHANCELLOR ELDON, and LORD CHANCELLOR LYNDHURST, 1826-1827. By JAMES RUSSELL, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Vol. III. 1830. [1] dearle v. hall. loveridge v. cooper. June, July, December, 1823 ; May'8, November 8, 9, 1827 ; December 24, 1828. [S. C. 2 L. J. Ch. (0. S.) 62, 75. See M'freight v. Foster, 1870, L. R. 5 Ch. G12 ; Ex parte Allen, 1870, L. R. 11 Eq. 211; Ex parte Rabbidge, 1878, 8 Ch. D. 370 ; In re Freshfuld's Trust, 1879, 11 Ch. D. 198 ; Palmer v. Locke, 1881,18 Ch. D. 38(5 ; West of England Bank v. Batchelor, 1882, 51 L. J. Ch. 200. Held not to apply to shares in Companies, Societe Generale de Paris v. Tramways Union Co., 1884-5, 14 Q. B. D. 425 ; 11 App. Gas. 20. See Arden v. Arden, 1885, 29 Ch. D. 708 ; In re Richards, 1890, 45 Gh. D. 589 ; Ward v. Duncombe, [1893] A. C. 376 ; Stephens v. Green. [1895] 2 Ch. 148 ; In re Wasdale, [1899] 1 Ch. 163. Lloyds Bank v. Pearson, [1901] 1 Ch. 865 ; In re Lake, [1903] 1 K. B. 153 ; Montefiore v. Geudalla, [1903] 2 Ch. 33.] A person having a beneficial interest in a sum of money, invested in the names of trustees, assigns it for valuable consideration to A., but no notice of the assignment is given to the trustees ; afterwards, the same person proposes to sell his interest to B., and B., having made inquiry of the trustees as to the nature of the vendor's title, and the amount of his interest, and receiving no intimation of the existence of any prior incumbrance, completes the purchase, and gives tha trustees notice : B. has a better equity than A. to the possession of the fund, and the assignment to B., though posterior in date, is to be preferred to the assignment to A. It is of no importance in the question as to the priority of title acquired under the assignments, whether the interest of the vendor be vested or contingent, present or reversionary. The cases of Dearie v. Hall and Loveridge v. Cooper involved the same principle ; and the decision in the latter, both on the original hearing and on appeal, was pronounced immediately after judgment had been given in the former, and with reference to the reasons and authorities on which that judgment proceeded. These circumstances render it convenient to combine, to some extent, the report of the one case with that of the other. [2] The case of Dearie v. Hall arose out of the following transactions :- Peter Brown, by his will, dated the llth of September 1794, after bequeathing some legacies, and giving an annuity of £40 to a granddaughter, made the following disposition of a part of the residue of his personal estate and of the money to arise by the sale of his real estates :-" I do hereby direct my said executrix and executors, and the survivors and survivor of them, and the executors and administrators of such survivor, to place one moiety of the said residue of my personal estate, and of the money to arise from the sale of my real estates, out at interest upon government or real security, during the life of my son Zachariah Brown, and to pay the interest and produce thereof unto him my said son Zachariah Brown during his life." 475 476 DEARLfi V. BALL S BUSS. 3. Ann Bircham, William Foster the elder, William Foster the younger, and William Unthank, the executrix and executors of Peter Brown, had invested the clear residue of the testator's estate, amounting to £4600, on real securities : and the share of the interest yielded by these securities, which was payable to Zachariah Brown, came to about £93 a-year. Mr. Unthank was a solicitor, and took the principal share in the management of the testator's estate. By an indenture, bearing date on the 19th of December 1808, and made and executed by and between Zachariah Brown of the first part, Charles Martin Demages of the second part, William Bircham of the third part, and William Dearie of the fourth part-(reciting, that Zachariah Brown was, under the last will of his father Peter Brown, entitled for life to the yearly annuity of £93, issuing out of a moiety of Peter Brown'x residuary estate, and which was then paid to him by [3] Ann Bircham, William Foster the elder, William Foster the younger, and William Unthank, the executors and executrix of Peter Brown ; that Zachariah Brown had agreed, in consideration of the sum of £204, to sell to Dearie an annuity of £37 a-year during the natural life of him Zachariah Brown, the payment of which was to be secured by the covenant and warrant of attorney of Zachariah Brown, and also of Charles Martin Demages, and William Bircham, who had agreed to become jointly and severally sureties for him),-it was witnessed, that, in pursuance of the said agreement, and of the sum of £204 paid to Zachariah Brown, they, Zachariah Brown, and Charles Martin Demages, and William Bircham, did, for themselves, their executors and administrators, jointly and severally covenant with William Dearie, his executors, administrators, and assigns, that they, their heirs, executors, or administrators, or some or one of them, should pay or cause to be paid unto William Dearie, his executors, administrators, and assigns, during the natural life of Zachariah Brown, one annuity of £37, free of and clear from all taxes, charges, and deductions, by equal quarterly payments, on the 19th of March, the 19th of June, the 19th of September, and the 19th of December, in every year. The indenture further witnessed, that, " for the better and more effectually securing the payment of the aforesaid annuity, he, Zachariah Brown, granted, bargained, sold, and assigned unto William Dearie, his executors, administrators, and assigns, all and singular the yearly sum or annuity of £93, and all arrears thereof, yearly arising or growing, and to which lie, Zachariah Brown, was entitled for life, under the will of Peter Brown, and all the estate, right, title, interest, trust, property, benefit, claim, and demand of him Zachariah Brown in, to, or out of the same," to have and take all the interest, dividends, and proceeds of the aforesaid stocks [4] or sums, and all other the premises thereby assigned, in as ample and beneficial a manner as he, Zachariah Broien, was then entitled to the same ; but, nevertheless, upon trust to permit and suffer Zachariah Brown and his assigns to receive and take the same, until default should be made for the space of twenty-one days in payment of some quarterly instalment of the annuity, or some part thereof ; and upon further trust, in case any quarterly instalment of the annuity, or any part thereof, should happen to be in arrear or unpaid for the space of twenty-one days next after any of the days or times aforesaid, then that William Dearie, his executors, administrators, or assigns, should receive and take the thereby assigned interest, dividends, and proceeds, and should thereout, in the first place, retain and satisfy to himself and themselves the costs of receiving the same, or otherwise attending the performance of the trusts thereby declared ; and, in the next place, should thereout retain, reimburse, and satisfy to himself or themselves the said annuity, or so much thereof as should be then in arrear, and should pay, or otherwise permit and suffer him Zachariah Brown, or his assigns, to receive and take the residue or surplus thereof, if any, to and for his and their own use and benefit. This declaration of trust was followed by a proviso making the annuity redeemable. A memorial of this indenture, and of the warrant of attorney mentioned in it, was enrolled. By another indenture, bearing date on the 2(Jth of September 1809, and made and executed by and between Zachariah Brown of the first part, William Bircham of the second part, and Caleb Rherring of the third part-(reciting Zachariah Brown's title under his father's will; that he had contracted to sell an annuity of £27 for his own natural life to Caleb tiherring, which, it had been agreed, should 3 SUSS. 3. DRARLE V. HALL 477 be secured by the covenant and warrant [5] of attorney of ZachariaJi Brown and William Bireham as his surety ; and that Zachariah Brown and William Bircham had, for that purpose, jointly and severally executed a warrant of attorney to confess judgment in the sum of £.'i()0) ;-it was witnessed, that, in pursuance of the said agreement, and in consideration of the sum of £150, they, Zachariah Brown and William Bireham, did for themselves, their heirs, executors, and administrators, jointly and severally covenant to pay or cause to lie. paid to (Jaleb Sherring, his executors, administrators, and assigns, from thenceforth during the natural life of Zachariah Brown, one annuity of £27, free and clear of and from all taxes, charges, and deductions, by equal quarterly payments, on the 26th of December, the 26th of March, the 26th of June, and the 2Gth of September : and it was thereby further witnessed, that, for the " better and more effectually securing the payment of the aforesaid annuity," Zachariah Brown granted, bargained, sold, and assigned unto Caleb Sherring, his executors, administrators, and assigns, the above-mentioned yearly sum or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Bank of Kuwait Plc v Sahib
...was whether if Sogenal had an interest as mortgagee or chargee of Mr Sahib's undivided share in the proceeds of sale of 37c, the rule in Dearle v. Hall (1828) 3 Russ. 1 applies. If it does, then UBK, by reason of the prior notice given to Mr Sahib and Mrs Hashim, will have priority over Sog......
-
United Bank of Kuwait Plc v Sahib
...Furthermore, in determining the priority between successive chargees of the same equitable interest, the rule in Dearle v HallENR ((1828) 3 Russ 1) was not to be extended to the advantage of a judgment creditor who had been content to give credit without taking security. Mr Justice Chadwick......
- Rhodes v Allied Dunbar Pension Services Ltd
-
Re Kinahan's Trusts and Trustee Act, 1893
...Ch. D. 17, 20. (2) [1901] 2 Ch. 385. (3) 1 W. R. 444; 21 L. T.(O. S.) [239]. (4) L. R. 3 Eq. 664, 667. (5) [1895] 2 Ch. 148, 160-162. (1) 3 Russ. 1. (2) [1893] A. C. 369, ...
-
Security Protection - Registration, Amendment And Release Requirements In Bermuda, BVI And The Cayman Islands
...of it has no notice or a prior security interest, and is the first to notify the debtor of his interest (the rule in Dearle v. Hall (1828) 3 Russ 1). In light of these rules, and in the event that questions of priority fail to be determined under Cayman Islands law, entry of particulars of ......
-
Aviation Finance & Leasing 2022: Cayman Islands
...to fix the priority of the interest of the lessor as assignee in accordance with the principles set out in the judgment in Dearle v Hall (1828) 3 RUSS 1. There is no requirement that written notice of an equitable assignment is given to the obligor, but there are certain advantages in doing......
-
Table of cases
...ABCA 394 ............................................................................................ 538 Dearle v Hall (1828), 3 Russ 1, 38 ER 475 ...................................175, 359, 360, 448 Dedrick v Ashdown (1888), 15 SCR 227, [1888] SCJ No 12 .............................. 428......
-
Equitable Security Interests: Their Creation and Priority
...the equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds (documents) was not so fortunate. REFERENCES (1) [1995] 2 WLR 94. (2) (1828) 3 Russ. 1; 38 ER 475. The rule is made applicable Page 67 Journal of Financial Crime — Vol. 3 No. 1 — Financial Fraud to equitable interests in real property by the ......
-
Reform of Assignation in Security: Lessons from the Netherlands
...to the debtor. Priority, in the case of a double assignment of the same right, is ruled by the so-called rule in Dearle v Hall:2626(1828) 3 Russ 1; 38 ER 475. the first onerous good faith assignee to notify the account debtor prevails.2727The rule is consistent with the general maxim of equ......
-
Transferees of Collateral
...PPSA. See also Production Enhancement Group Inc (Re), [2011] AJ No 602, 2011 ABQB 350. 139 See Chapter 4, Section D. 140 (1828), 3 Russ 1, 38 ER 475. 141 See Fairbanx Corp v Royal Bank of Canada , 2010 ONCA 385; Bank of Nova Scotia v IPS Invoice Payment System Corporations , 2010 ONSC 2101;......