Harrington against Price and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 January 1832 |
| Date | 24 January 1832 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 63
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. (sub nom. Harrington v. Glen), 1 L. J. K. B. 122. Discussed, Blunden v. Desart, 1842, 2 Dr. & War. 429.
harrington against price and another. Tuesday, January 24th, 1832. An estate was conveyed in 1803 by J. B. to W. H., who in 1812 conveyed it to A. H., and he sold it in 1826 to the plaintiff. The original vendor did not deliver up the title deeds. In 1824 he was sued by the then owner of the estate for the deeds, and a verdict was recovered against him, but the judgment was not 64 HARRINGTON V. PRICE 3B.&AD. 171. doequeted. He absconded, and in 1825 obtained a sum of money, as on a mortgage of the estate, from one of the defendants, with whom he deposited the deeds. On trover brought in 1829 by a party claiming through the conveyance to W. H., it was held, that the legal owner of the estate might recover the deeds from the mortgagee, without tendering the mortgage money. [S. C. (sub nom. Harrington v. Glen), 1 L. J. K. B. 122. Discussed, Blunden v. Desart, 1842, 2 Dr. & War. 429.] Trover for title deeds. Plea, not guilty. At the trial before Lord Tenterden C.J. at the Middlesex sittings after Trinity term 1830, a verdict was found for [171] the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case:- In 1803, the estate to which the title deeds related, was duly conveyed by James Brograve to William Harrington and his heirs for a sum of money, which was paid, and the purchaser had possession. He conveyed it in 1812 to his nephew, Andrew Harrington, by whom, in 1826, it was sold for 451., and duly conveyed to the plaintiff, who was lawfully seised of the estate when this action was brought. At the time of the conveyance in 1803, Brograve refused to deliver up the title deeds, alleging a claim in respect of certain quit rents due upon the estate to the lord of the manor, but this claim was afterwards satisfied (in 1812), and it was admitted in arguing the case, that Brograve had no right to the deeds as against the plaintiff. In 1824, A. H., the then possessor of the estate, sued Brograve in trover for the deeds, (which had been before demanded and refused,) and obtained a verdict for 1001., to be reduced to Is. on delivery of the deeds. Final judgment was signed and a fi. fa. issued, but Brograve absconded, and the writ was not executed nor the deeds delivered; and the judgment was not doequeted till 1827. In September...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M'Kay v M'Nally
...re Fowler 14 Ir. Ch. R. 21. Malone v. MinoughanUNK 14 Ir. C. L. 540, 568. The Lord Buckhurst's CaseUNK 1 Rep. 1. Harrington v. PriceENR 3 B. & Ad. 170. Goode v. BurtonENR 1 Ex. 193. Church v. Brown 15 Ves. 265. Smith v. Chichester 2 Dr. & W. 393, 401. Philips v. RobinsonENR 4 Taunt. 106. Lo......
-
Joseph Neale, Executor of William Neale, v Molineux and Others
...the issues. Whitehurst and Macauley, for the plaintiff. Crowder and Kettle, for the defendants. [Attormes-Loftus, and J. J. Millard.] (a) 3 B. & Ad 170 In that case, which was an action of trover for the title-deeds of certain land, it appeared that James Brograve had sold the land to a pur......
-
Smith v Chichester
...129. Furlong Howard 2 Sch. & Lef. 115. Hutchinson v. Joyce 2 Jones, 122. Hooper v. RamsbottomENR 6 Taunt. 12. Harrington v. PriceENR 3 B. & Ad. 170. Ibid 173. Buckhurst's caseENR 1 Co. Rep. 1. Philipps v. RobinsonENR 4 Bing. 106. Skip v. WyattENR 1 Cox, 353. Wetherall v. CollinsUNK 3 Mad. 2......
-
Blunden v Desart
...& B. 79. (d) 1 Gl. & Jam. 116. (e) 1 Cr. & Ph. 315. (f) Cas. temp. Sugden, 252. (a) 4 T. R. 229. (b) 3 P. Wms. 280. (c) 6 Ves. 191. (d) 3 B. & Ad. 170. (e) 2 B. & C. (f) 4 B. & Ad. 735. (g) 12 Tes. 6. (h) 2 Jones, 170. (i) 1 Ir. Eq. Rep. 113. (a) 6 Ves. 91. (a) 16 Ves. 275. (b) 1 M. & Sel. ......