Graham v Londonderry
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 1746 |
| Date | 24 November 1746 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 1026
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Case 132.-worsley versus The Earl of scarborough, November 15, 1746. [See Fuller v. Benett, 1843, 2 Hare, 404; Price v. Price, 1887, 35 Ch. D. 301.] A decree is not an implied notice to a purchaser after the cause is ended, but it is the pendency of the suit that creates the notice; for as it is a transaction in a sovereign court of justice, it is supposed all people are attentive to what passes there. (Vide Sorrel v. Carpenter, 2 P. W. 483. Garth v. Ward, ante [Atk.], 2 vol. 174.) Notice to an agent or counsel who was employed in the thing by another person, or in another business, and at another time, is no notice to his client who employs him afterwards. Lord Chancellor said, that where a sum of money in trust is already laid out upon a real security, and afterwards the said sura is laid out by the trustees upon another estate, it is a very different case, and stands upon very different principles, than where a sum of money is intended to continue as it is in the hands of trustees, and they lay out that sum in the purchase of an estate; because here the nature of the property is altered, and it is become quite another thing ; but in the former case the nature of the property is the same, and continues unaltered, though it is transferred to another estate (so Waite v. Whorwood, ante, 2 vol. 159). Vide Ryal versus Ryal, February 4, 1739, 1 Tr. Atk. 59. C. VI.-33 1026 GRAHAM V. LONDONDERRY 3 ATE. 393. Secondly, That there is no such doctrine in this court, that a decree made here shall be an implied notice to a purchaser after the cause is ended, but it is the pendency of the suit that creates the notice ; for as it is a transaction in a sovereign court of justice, it is supposed all people are attentive to what passes there, and it is to prevent a greater mischief that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grant v Grant
...and Mr. W. W. Karslake, for the [624] Plaintiff, cited Lucas v. Lucas (1 Atk. 270); Northey v. Nwthey (2 Atk. 77); Graham v. Lomlonderry (3 Atk. 393); Mews v. Mews (15 Beav. 529) ; Tipping v. Tipping (1 Peere, W. 729); Jervoise v. Jervoise (17 Beav. 566). Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Kay, for the Def......
-
Lord Teynham v Webb
...younger child's vested portion for the other children on the particular hardship or circumstances of the case; òGraham v. Lord Londonderry (3 Atk. 393), 24 November 1746 ; where the trust of two terms was declared, if the father should have one issue male and other child or children, -son o......
-
Walter v Hodge
...Sir Joseph Jekyll, in which several trinkets were given her by Lord Cowper in his lifetime, and determined to be her separate estate." (3 Atk. 393.) The case of Slanning v. Style (3 P. W. 334) arose on savings of the wife's pin-money, which her husband had borrowed ; and the Court thought t......
-
Cornewall v Cornewall
...Plymouth (2 Atk. 104); Probert v. Clifford (Amb. 6; 2 P. Will. 544, note); Tipping v. Tipping (1 P. Will. 729); Graham v. Lard Londonderry (3 Atk. 393). The case of Snelson v. Cm-bet (3 Atk. 369) shew* that paraphernalia are to be preferred to specific legacies. The principle of a Court (1)......