Forth v Duke of Norfolk and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 January 1820 |
| Date | 17 January 1820 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 56 E.R. 791
COURT OF THE VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND
[503] forth v. duke of norfolk and others. Jan. 17, 1820. On the 27th and 28th November 1809 W. conveyed a reversion in fee to A. by way of mortgage. On the 1st January 1810 E., on the part of the Duke of Norfolk, entered into a written agreement with W. for the purchase of the reversion. On the 15th August 1810 A., the mortgagee who was paid off by E., joined with W. in conveying the estate to E., and a part of the purchase-money, then unpaid, was secured to W, by a mortgage term created by that deed. W. was indebted to F. upon a bond dated 16th November 1809, and a warrant of attorney of the same date was given by VV., upon which judgment was entered up and docketted on the 15th February 1810, and an inquisition was had thereon on the 20th February 1810. On the 15th April 1810 notice was given by F. of his judgment, the money secured to \V. by the mortgage term being then unpaid. Held, that F. had no lien upon the term in the hands of the debtor, and consequently no lien upon the term in the hands of his assignee. The Plaintiff was a judgment creditor of J. H. Wheatley, and the Defendant, the Duke of Norfolk, was a purchaser from Wheatley of an estate to which he was entitled in reversion, subject to the life of a Mr. Hewitt; and the object of the suit was to charge the Defendant, the Duke of Norfolk, with the Plaintiff's judgment debt. By indentures of the 27th and 28th November 1809 Wheatley conveyed this reversion, by way of mortgage in fee, to Lewis Alsop. On the 1st January 1810 the Defendant, Mr. Eyre, on the part of the Duke of Norfolk, entered into a written agreement with Mr. Wheatley for the purchase of the reversion. On the loth March 1810 Mr. Alsop the mortgagee, who was paid off by Mr. Eyre, joined with Mr. Wheatley in conveying the estate to Mr. Eyre, and a part of the purchase-money, then unpaid, was secured to Mr. Wheatley by a mortgage term created by that deed. The Plaintiff's debt accrued upon a bond, dated 16th November 1809, accompanied with a warrant of attorney, [504] upon which judgment was entered up and docketted on 15th February 1810, and an inquisition was taken thereon on the 20th February 1810. On the 15th April 1810 notice was given by the Plaintiff of his judgment; the money secured to Wheatley by the mortgagee being then unpaid. The case was twice argued, on the part of the Plaintiff, by Mr. Heald, Mr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rawson v Tasburgh
...Bumn v. Ashbtj (Finch, 366), Davis v. The Earl of Stmthmore (16 Ves. 419), Toulmin v. Stem (3 Mer. 210), Forth v. The Duke of Norfolk (4 Madd. 503). the vice-chancellor said that Cranmer was entitled to priority over Lawson, in respect of the sums paid by him on procuring the assignments of......
-
Foster v Blackstone
...the heir, and that the purchase-money, when the lessee elected to purchase, belonged to the next of kin. In Forth v. The Duke of Norfolk (4 Madd., 503), whore the debtor sold his equitable reversion, and took a legal term as a security for part of the purchase-money, the judgment creditor w......