Dodds v Hills
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 March 1865 |
| Date | 22 March 1865 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 71 E.R. 528
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
S. C. 12 L. T. 139. See R. v. Shropshire Union Company, 1873-75, L. R. 8 Q. B. 443; L. R. 7 H. L. 496; Ortigosa v. Brown, 1878, 47 L. J. Ch. 168; Roots v. Williamson, 1888, 38 Ch. D. 485; Powell v. London and Provincial Bank [1893], 1 Ch. 616; [1893], 2 Ch. 555.
Mortgagor and Mortgagee. Priority. Shares. Notice. Transfer. Registry.
528 DODDS V. HILLS 2H.4M.4M. [424] dodds v. hills. Jlfa?-e& 22, 1865. [S. C. 12 L. T. 139. See R. v. Shropshire Union Company, 1873-75, L. E. 8 Q. B. 443; L. R. 7 H. L. 496; Ortigosa v. Brvum, 1878, 47 L. J. Ch. 168; Roots v. Williamson, 1888, 38 Ch. D. 485; Powell v. London and Provincial Bank [1893], 1 Ch. 616; [1893], 2 Ch. 555.] Mortgagor and Mortgagee. Priority. Shares. Notice. Transfer. Registry. A sole trustee of shares executed a transfer and delivered it with the certificate of the shares to a mortgagee who had no notice of the trust. The mortgagee did nob register his transfer until after notice of the trust. Held, that the transfer could not be impeached. The certificate shewed that the shares had formerly stood in the names of two persons. Held, that this was not enough to put the mortgagee on inquiry or fix him with notice. The Plaintiff was a married woman (suing by next friend), upon whom certain shares in the Whittle Dean Water Company had been settled for her separate use. The shares stood in the name of Henry Hills, as sole trustee, having formerly stood (as the share certificate shewed) in his name jointly with that of another person. On the 19th of (September 1857 Hills obtained an advance from the Defendant, Smith, out of the funds of a club of which Smith was secretary; as security for which he executed a transfer of the said trust shares, and handed the same, together with the certificate of the shares, to Smith. He also gave a promissory note to the treasurer of the club. Further advances were made by Smith, partly out of the funds of the same and another club of which also Smith waa secretary, and partly out of his own monies; and it was verbally arranged between Hills and Smith that the shares should be held by Smith as security for those further sums. The security of the shares appeared to have been given to Smith personally to indemnify him, and not directly as a security to the clubs. At the time when these advances were made Smith had no notice of the trust, or that the shares were not the absolute property of Hills...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collis v Hibernian Bank and Others
...SimmonsELR [1892] A. C. 201. France v. Clark 26 Ch. Div. 257. Mulrille v. Munster & Leinster BankUNK 27 L. R. Ir. 379. Dodds v. HillsENR 2 H. & M. 424. Roots v. Williams 38 Ch. Div. 485. Mumford v. StohwasserELR L. R. 18 Eq. 556. Allen v. KnightENR 5 Hare, 272. Riddick v. Glennon 6 Ir. Jur.......
-
Waterhouse v Bank of Ireland
...27 L. R. Ir. 379. Colonial Bank v. Cady and WilliamsELR 15 App. Cas. 267, at p. 284. France v. Clark 26 Ch. Div. 257. Dodds v. HillsENR 2 H. & M. 424. London and County Banking Co. v. London and River BankELR 20 Q. B. Div. 232. Simmons v. London Joint Stock BankELR [1891] 1 Ch. 279; [1890] ......