Harriot Davies against George Croft Vernon and Luke Minshall

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date06 July 1844
Date06 July 1844
CourtCourt of the Queen's Bench

English Reports Citation: 115 E.R. 169

QUEEN'S BENCH

Harriot Davies against George Croft Vernon and Luke Minshall

S. C. 14 L. J. Q. B. 30; 8 Jur. 871.

harriot davies agaiiist george croft vehnon and luke minshall. Saturday, July 6th, 1844. By marriage settlement, lands were settled on the husband for life, with a joint power of appointment in the husband and wife. They mortgaged the land, with all title deeds, to A. for a term, and delivered the deeda to him. M. D. paid off the mortgage; and took an assignment of the premises from A., the first mortgagee, but without mention of title deeds, arid M. D. never demanded them. A. afterwards gave up the deeds to the husband ; and he deposited them with the defendants, solicitors, as collateral security for mortgage money which he owed their client. Afterwards, the husband and wife mortgaged the settled lands in fee, subject to the term, without mention of title deeds; and they executed the power of appointment by giving a like power to the wife alone. The husband died; and the wife appointed to herself in fee. She then offered defendants to pay the debt due from her late husband to their client, on receiving back the title deeds, denying, however, that she was liable for such payment; but the defendants refused to deliver them unless they were paid also their own charges for business done for their client in respect of the mortgage to him. In trover by the wife against defendants for the deeds, Held 1. That the delivery of the deeds by A. to the husband was a rightful delivery, and enured to the benefit of the husband and wife during their joint lives, and afterwards of the wife as appointee under the power. 2. That the wife was entitled to hold the deeds as against the mortgagee iu fee, having an interest in them in respect of her equity of redemption, no mention being made of them in the conveyance in fee, and the deeds never having been handed over to the mortgagee iu fee. 3. That, even if this were not so, the defendants could not set up the right of the mortgagee in fee. 4. That the action well lay against the defendants, though they held the deeds only as solicitors. 5. That the demand, accompanied by an offer to pay, was sufficient, though plaintiff at the same time denied her liability. K. B. XLIV.-6* 170 DATIES V. VBRNON Q.B.4i4. 6. That the refusal to give up the deeds except ou condition, which defendants had no right to impose, that their charges in respect of business done for their own client should be paid was evidence of a conversion. [S. C. 14 L. J. Q. B. 30; 8 Jur. 871.] Trover for deeds and writings, to wit an attested copy of release, &c., a certain exemplicatioti of a recovery, &c. (the declaration described the several in-[444]-stru-ments by the dates and parties). Pleas 1. Not guilty. 2. Plaintiff not possessed. Issues thereon. On the trial, before Wightman J., at the Worcester Spring Assizes, 1843, a verdict was taken for the plain tiff with 10001. damages, to be reduced to 40s. if the defendants should give up the deeds; and with leave to the defendants to move to enter a nonsuit. W. J. Alexander, in Easter term, 1843, obtained a rule to shew cause why a nonsuit should not be entered or a new trial had. In Hilary vacation, 1844 (a)1, R. V. Richards and F. V. Lee shewed cause, and W. J. Alexander and J. W. Smith supported the rule. The facts of the case, the points argued, and the authorities cited, will appear sufficiently from the judgment of the Court and the notes subjoined. Lord Denraan C.J. now delivered the judgment of the Court. This was an action of trover for the recovery of the title deeds of an estate. The pleaa were: 1. Not guilty. 2. That plaintiff was not possessed. The facts at the trial appeared to be as follows. In August 1810 a deed of settlement was executed upon the marriage of the plaintiff with her husband, since deceased...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • CASSIM v. PERERA
    • Sri Lanka
    • Court of Appeal (Sri Lanka)
    • 24 January 1917
    ...B. D. 81. 4 5 B. & Aid. 247. 508 master's premises cannot, as a general rule, be said to be in possession of them (Davies v. Vernon 1[(1844) 6 Q. B. 443.]), and nothing has been shown in this case for concluding that the defendant, occupying the position he did was in possession of the fish......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT