England v Codrington
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 November 1758 |
| Date | 22 November 1758 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 28 E.R. 649
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
england . codrington. Nov. 21, 22,1758. Conveyances held upon the circumstances and answer of defendant to be mortgages, and not absolute conveyances; and defendant having insisted upon their being absolute conveyances; plaintiffs were allowed to redeem with costs. This was a bill brought by the plaintiffs (all of the name and family of England, who were entitled to certain [170] premises at Marshfield in the county of Gloucester, under various family transactions) against Sir William Codrington, for an account of the rents and profits, and a redemption, &c. The bill stated that the several estates which were the subject of it, being under various mortgages, and the mortgagees being impatient for the money, William and John England, two of the plaintiffs, having refused an offer of 1600 from Thomas Evans, one of the mortgagees for that part of the estate which was in mortgage to him in May 1751, had applied to Stephen Simpson, an attorney, to relieve them from their embarrassments, who promised to apply to the defendant to advance them sufficient for that purpose. That they afterwards with Simpson waited upon the defendant, who assured them that he would stand their friend, and assist them with money on the said estate at four and a half per cent., and advance some money to lie as a reserve in their hands, to answer the year's interest; mentioning at the same time his expectation of the plaintiffs repaying him again in a year after the defendant should have paid off the said Thomas Evans, which the said plaintiff agreed to; and Simpson declared that the deeds must be drawn (as the other mortgages had been) as absolute conveyances to the defendant. That upon that Simpson produced a paper writing ready drawn by him, without any direction, from the plaintiffs, or acquainting them therewith, and which he read to the plaintiffs and defendant: that upon the plaintiffs objecting, that they ought to have a note of defeasance, Simpson answered that the defendant should give nothing under his hand, but should give his word for their liberty of redeeming the premises at the time prefixed. Upon which the defendant declared that he would take no advantage of the plaintiffs from his not signing a defeaz-ance note : but in case the plaintiffs paid him the money to be advanced by him, and charges of [171] the writings, with interest at the year's end, he would accept thereof. That the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Muttyloll Seal, - Appellant; Annundochunder Sandle and Jogenderchunder Sandle, - Respondents
...sale, but was in the nature of a mortgage, giving the party a right of re-purchase, on the footing of redemption, England v. Codrvngton (1 Eden, 169), Williams v. Owen (5 Myl. and Cr. 303), Sevier v. Greenway (19 Ves. 413), 1 Powell " On Mortgages," p. 120 (6th Edit, by Cov. And see Maxwell......
-
NEWENHAM and another, by HALLIGHAN, their next Friend, v MAHON and Others
...392. Millington v. Fox 3 M. & C. 352. Burgh v. Kenny 1 Ir. Eq. R. 264. Harvey v. TebbuttENR 1 Jac. & W. 197. England v. CodringtonENR 1 Eden, 169. Dryden v. Frost 3 M. & C. 670. Detillin v. Gale 7 Ves. 583. Hill v. Magan 2 Moll. 460. 304 CASES IN EQUITY. thereof. And decree the defendants, ......
-
Inglis and Another v Haigh
...V. HA1GH 8 M. &W. 772. altogether beside the doctrine [772] laid down by Lord Kenyon. All the subsequent caaes, Martin v. Heathcute (1 Eden, 169), Jones v. Pengree (( Ves. 580), Barber v. Barber (18 Ves. 286), will be found to have been decided with reference to the supposed authority of Wr......
-
Lee Sang Investment Co Ltd v Catherine Lam Koon Len
...Principles of Equity 27th ed. p.378. 3. Dart: Vendor and Purchaser. 4. Re Watson (1890) 25 Q.B.D. 27. 5. England v. Codrington 28 English Reports p.649. 6. Lincoln v. Wright 45 English Reports p.6. 7. Re Duke of Marlborough v. Whitehead (1894) 2 Ch. p.133. 8. Waters v. Minn (1850) 15 L.T. (......