Exton v Scott
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 February 1833 |
| Date | 22 February 1833 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 58 E.R. 507
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Explained, Cracknall v. Janson, 1879, 11 Ch. D. 2.
Deed. Escrow. Debtor and Crditor.
[31] exton v. scott. Feb. 22, 1833. [Explained, Cracbnall v. Janson, 1879, 11 Ch. D. 2.] Deed. Esc/row. Debtor and Creditor. A. having received monies belonging to B. privately, and without any communication with B., prepared and executed a mortgage to him for the amount. A. retained the deed in his custody for 12 years, and then died insolvent. After his death the deed was discovered in a chest containing his title-deeds. Held, that the deed was-not an escrow, there being no evidence to shew that it was executed conditionally, but that it took effect from its execution, and was good against A.'s creditors. L. Hampson, a banker and solicitor, was, under his marriage settlement, dated in 1786, tenant for life of certain estates in Bedfordshire, with remainder to his daughters in fee ; and the trustees of the settlement were empowered, with the consent of the tenant for life, to sell the estates and lay out the purchase-money in the purchase of other estates to be settled to the same uses ; and, in the meantime, the purchase-money was to be invested in Government or real securities. In 1809, 1810 and 1812, Edward Hampson, the brother of L. Hampson, and the surviving trustee of the [32] settlement, at the request of L. Hampson, sold certaiu parts of th& settled estates, and the purchase-monies were paid into L. Hampson's bank, to an account intituled, "Messrs. L. & E. Hampson, Trust Money." The monies so paid in were afterwards invested in the purchase of Navy five per cents, in the name of L. Hampson alone, and, between January and August in 1812, he sold out part of the stock, and in December 1814 he sold out the remainder, amounting to 5000. In July 1811 and December 1812, L. Hampson's two daughters married, and Sir John Filmer and Eichard Gilpin were the trustees of their settlements. By an indenture, dated the 18th of December 1812, and expressed to be made between L. Hampson of the one part, and Sir John Filmer and Eichard Gilpin (who were described as trustees named in the settlements made previous to and upon the marriages of the two daughters of L. Hampson, by Frances, his late wife, deceased), of the other part ; after reciting that the sum of 5000, the net money arising from the sale of the part of the settled estates in the county of Bedford comprised in the settlement made upon the marriage of L. Hampson, with Frances, his late wife, was paid to and received by Hampson, and was then in his hands, as he thereby admitted and acknowledged, and that Hampson, previous to the marriages of his daughters, undertook and agreed to execute, a moiigage to Filmer and Gilpin of the messuage*, lands and. hereditaments thereinafter mentioned and described, fw securing the payment to them of the, said sum of 5000 upon the trusts and for the purposes of the settlements made previous to the marriages of his said daughters : it was witnessed [33] that, in consideration of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v Gomme
...counsel referred to Dutton v. Pool (1 Ventr. 318), Doc, v. Knighf 5 MY. ft CR,261. HILL V. GOMME 367 (5 B. & C. 671), Exton v. Scott (6 Sim. 31), Mwless v. Franklin (1 Sw. 13), Grabb v. 6VaW (I Mylne & Keen, 511), Knatchbull v. Feurnliead (3 Mylne & Craig, 122), [251] Dyer v. Ztyer (2 Cox, ......
-
Palmer v Newell
...(4 Hare, 67). Secondly, its retention in the settlors custody is immaterial; Doe d. Garnons v. Knight (5 Barn. & Cr. 671); Exton v. Scott (6 Sim. 31); Hall v. Palmer (3 Hare, 532). But, in reality, it was in the proper custody, viz., in that of Mr. Witham, one of the trustees. Thirdly, ther......
-
Attwood v Lloyd
...tends to shew that the parties, taking under John Attwood, who was our trustee, cannot be in a better position than he. Extonv. Scott (6 Sim. 31), is in favour of the validity of our mortgage. If the-trustees ever had a lien they waived and lost it. The deeds were not given to Beisley by wa......
-
Dillon v Coppin
...the operation of the deed. Old dicta seem to shew that it would : but Doe dem. Garnons v. Knight (5 B. & C. 671) and Extern v. Scott (6 Sim. 31) seem to shew that, if the delivery of the deed be perfectly unqualified, its retention by the grantor, after such unqualified delivery, will not r......