Foster v Roberts
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 April 1861 |
| Date | 27 April 1861 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 54 E.R. 708
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 30 L. J. Ch. 666; 4 L. T. 760; 7 Jur. (N. S.) 400; 9 W. R. 605. See Fry v. Lane, 1888, 40 Ch. D. 320.
[467] foster v. roberts. April 22, 23, 25, 27, 1861. [S. C. 30 L. J. Ch. 666 ; 4 L. T. 760 ; 7 Jur. (N. S.) 400; 9 W. R. 605. See Fry v. Law, 1888, 40 Ch. D. 320.] A reversionary interest was purchased lonu fide for £370, it being worth £400. It was set aside, after it had fallen into possession, on the simple ground of being a sale of a reversion at an under-value. Policies on the life of A., which were of no value, were, upon the sale by A. of a reversionary interest, assigned to the purchaser, who kept them up at his own risk 29BEAV.M8. FOSTER V. ROBERTS 709 and expense. The sale was set aside after A.'s death. Held, that as the vendor's representatives would not have been bound to repay the premiums on setting aside the transaction, if they had exceeded the value of the policies, so on the other hand they were hot entitled to the moneys received by the purchaser on such policies on the death of A. Rule as to costs on setting aside a sale of a reversion for want of sufficient consideration. This was a suit instituted to set aside the sale of a reversionary interest, on the ground that it had been purchased at an under-value. A testator, who died in 1831, bequeathed £1000 to his executors, in trust to invest and pay the dividends to his son James Foster during his life, and after his death upon trust for his grandson Charles Foster. The trustees invested the legacy in £1203 £3 per cents. In 1855 the Gresham Life Assurance Society agreed to lend Charles Foster £150 on his effecting a policy upon his life in their office for £300 and mortgaging the policy, and hia reversionary interest in the legacy. He accordingly effected the policy, and by indenture of the [468] 20th of October, mortgaged it and the reversionary interest to the society for securing the £150 and interest. The Gresham Life Assurance Society afterwards advanced him a further sum of £150 on a similar security, and he executed to them a second mortgage, dated the 14th of August 1856, of his reversionary interest and of a second policy on his life in their office for £300, for securing the £150 and interest. The society declined making him any further advances, and he thereupon, in November 1856, applied to the Defendant Roberts, an auctioneer, and instructed him to sell his reversion for £380, adding, " The offer is open to anyone, even yourself." A negotiation ensued, and ultimately Charles Foster agreed to sell his reversionary interest in the legacy and his two policies to the Defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perfect v Lane
...Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Walford, for the Defendants. Edwards v. Bwt (2 De G. M. & G. 55); SaUer v. Bradshaw (26 Beav. 161); Foster v. Roberts (29 Beav. 467); Bromley v. Smith (26 Beav. 644); Shelly v. Nash (3 Madd. 232V were cited. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. This is one of a cla......
-
Jones v Ricketts
...LANG V. GISBOENE 31 BEAV. 132. Mr. Selvvyn, for the Defendant. Mr. Follett, in reply. Brock v. Kellock (3 Giff. 58); Foster v. Roberts (29 Beav. 467); Perfect [132] v. Lane. (30 Beav. 197); Edivanh v. Burt (2 De G. M. & G. 55); Sailer v. Bradshaw (26 Beav. 161); Pain's case (8 Co. Eep. 34);......
-
Butler v Berridge
...Great Western Railway (13 Sim. 368), Walford v. Pemberton (Ib. 441), had been cited in the argument. (2) As to which Foster v. Roberts (29 Beav. 467) had been referred to in the -argument. English Reports Citation: 46 E.R. 831 BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD WESTBURY. Butler and Berridge S......
-
Sharp v Leach
...Hardy, for the Defendant Leach. Mr. Baggallay, for the children of Mr. Leach. Mr. Langhorne, for Mr. and Mrs. Willets. Foxier v. Roberts (29 Beav. 467); Jones v. EicMts (31 Beav. 130); Perfect v. Lane (30 Beav. 197), were cited; and see Hoghton v. Hoghton (15 Beav. 278), and Codke v. Lamoit......