Ford v White
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 May 1852 |
| Date | 28 May 1852 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 723
ROLLS COURT
Distinguished, Chadwick v. Turner, 1866, L. R. 1 Ch. 319.
MBE1V.120. FORD V. WHITE 723 [120] ford v, white.(!) May 28, 1852. [Distinguished, Chadwick v. Turner, I860, L. R. 1 Ch. 319.] A party taking aji equitable mortgage with notice of prior equitable mortgage, cannot, by assignment to another without notice, give him a better title. Property in Middlesex was mortgaged to A., and afterwards to B., and subsequently to C., with notice of B.'s incumbrance. C. registered before B. aud afterwards assigned to D., who had no notice of B.'s mortgage. Held, that the interests being equitable, D. had no priority over B. The assignees of a bankrupt mortgagor who had no assets disclaimed, and said that they would have disclaimed before suit, if any application had been made to them. Held, nevertheless, that they were not entitled to costs. In 1837 Colonel Copland mortgaged some leasehold property situate in Middlesex to White, and there was no question as to this being the first mortgage. In 1838 Copland mortgaged the same property to Ford, the Plaintiff. [121] On the 9th of May 1842 Copland mortgaged the same property to Parkea, who registered his security on the 26th of May 1842, while Ford's security remained unregistered until the 15th of July following. Parkes afterwards, in 1844 and 1845, assigned his interest to Paget and others. The mortgagor Copland became bankrupt. The Plaintiff filed this bill to redeem White, and to establish a priority over Parkes and those claiming under him, upon the allegation that Parkes, whose security had priority over Ford's on the registry, had notice of the Plaintiff's mortgage at the time he, Parkes, obtained the mortgage from Copland. The evidence established such notice in Parkes, but not in Paget and the other persons claiming under Parkes. One of the witnesses stated that, before the execution of the deed of 1842, Parkes pressed Copland for a security for his debt, and said, " ' Colonel, you must give me a mortgage on your Tothill Fields property.' To which the Colonel replied, ' I'll give you a mortgage for what you like, as my brother-in-law and Mr. Ford (the Plaintiff) have mortgages which will swamp all the property.'" To which Parkes replied, ' Never mind ; I want the mortgage.' Parkes, on a subsequent occasion, said to the witness, " I have done old Ford. I found, on inquiry, that he had not registered his mortgage, so I went in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benham v Keane
...Atk. 275), Dams v. Strathmore (16 Ves. 419), Willis v. Brown (10 Sim. 127), [688] BoUnson v. Woodward (4 De G. & Sm. 562), Ford v. White (16 Beav. 120), Procter v. Cooper (2 Drew. 1 ; S. C. on appeal, 1 Jur. (N. S.) 149), Whitworfh v. Gaugain (1 Phill. 728). Then as to the facts : I shew no......
-
Moore v Culverhouse
...(16 Sim. 547); Jones v. Smith (1 Hare, 43); Evans v. Bicknell (6 Ves. 173); Sarnftart v. GremshieUs (9 Moore, P. C. 32); Ford v. White (16 Beav. 120), were cited. Secondly, that a memorandum like that of the 1st of June 1858 was not within the Act of 7 Anne, c. 20, and did not require regis......
-
The Estate of David Vandeleur Roche, Owner; John Vanderkiste, Petitioner Same; ex parte Sheehy
...VANDELEUR ROCHE, OWNER; JOHN VANDERKISTE, PETITIONER SAME; EX PARTE SHEEHY Phillips v. PhillipsENR 4 De G. F. & J. 208. Ford v. WhiteENR 16 Beav. 120. Thorpe v. HoldsworthELR L. R. 7 Eq. 139. Agra Bank v. BarryELR L. R. 7 H. L. 135. Hunt v. Elmes 2 De G. F.& J. 578. Wylde v. Radford 33 L. J......
-
Gray v Adamson
...of the parties, had been deprived of his costs. [384] Fordv. The Earl of Chesterfield (16 Beav. 516) was cited; and see Ford v. White (16 Beav. 120); Davis v. Whitman (28 Beav. 617); Furber v. Furber (30 Beav. f.i'3). the master of the rolls [Lord Romilly]. When he was served he ought to ha......