Horton v The Westminster Improvement Commissioners
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 June 1852 |
| Date | 12 June 1852 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 1165
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 21 L J Ex 297 Referred to, Ex parte Watson, 1888, 21 Q B D 302, In re Holland, Gregg v Holland, [1901] 2 Ch 158
[TJ80] hokton v the westminster improvement commissioners May 31, June 2, 1852 - In an action against The Westminster Improvement Cornmissioneis, the declaration stated, that the defendants, by their writing obligatory, acknowledged that they, by viitue of the Westminater Improvement Acts, 1845 and 1847, weie bound to P iti a certain sum, subject to a condition foi lepay merit, which recited "that, by virtue of the said Acts, the defendants weie authorised to borrow any sum of money for the purposes of the Acts, and to secuie the same by then bonds , and that the defendants, in puisuance of the Acts, had borrowed of P 50001, for enabling them to carry the purposes of the Acts into execution " The declaration then stated, that P, according to the provisions of the Westminster Improvement Act, assigned the bond to the plaintiff , and alleged as a breach the nonpayment to the plaintiff of interest Seventh plea, that the defendants did not, rn pursuance of the sard Acts, borrow of P the said sum for enabling them to caiiy the purposes of the Acts into execution, nor was the same lent by P for that puipose, and that the writing obligatory was not made by the defendants far securing the payment of any sum of money borrowed by the defendants for the purposes of and under the powets and provisions of the Acts Eighth plea, that C M and W M were entitled to receive from the defendants certain bonds , and that P and A conspired to obtain to the use of P those bonds, and to cheat and defraud C M and W M thereof , and, in pursuance of such conspiracy, by fraud and covin piactised upon C M and W M , caused and procured them to contract with P that he should have, and that they should cause to be delivered to him, the bonds to which they were so entitled , that P and A in further pursuance of the conspiracy, and by means of the said fraud and eovin, did cause and procure C M and W M to lequest and direct the defendants to make and deliver the bonds to which C M and W M weie so entitled, and amongst others the bond in the declaration mentioned, to P as the obligee thereof, instead of C M arid W M That P and A , in furthei pursuance of the conspiracy, and by means of the fraud and covin, caused and procured the defendants t'i deliver the bond in the declatation mentioned to P , of which ptemises the plaintiff had notice, and that afterwards, C M. and W M required the plaintiffs not to pay the bond General demurrer to these pleas - Held, that the seventh plea was bad, on the ground, hist, that the Westmrnstei Improvement Act, 1845, enabled the Commissioners to borrow any sum of money which " they should ]udge necessary for the purposes of the Act" Secondly, that the defendants were estopped by the recitals of the bond from denying that the money was in fact borrowed for those purposes - Held, also, that the eighth plea did not disclose any defence at law to the action, but that the only remedy was in a Court of equity [S C 21 L J Ex 297 Referred to, E&parte Watsm, 1888, 21 Q B D 302 , In re Holland , Gfiegrj v Holland, [1901] 2 Ch 158] Debt The declaration stated, that the defendants, by then writing obligatory, sealed with their common seal, (profert), acknowledged that they, by virtue of the 14 Westminster Improvement Act, 1845," and the "Westminster Improvement Act, 1'847," were held and hrmly bound to T Pooley in the sum of 10,0001 , &c. , which bond was subject to a condition thereunder written, whereby, aftei reciting that under und by vrrtue of the said Acts of Parliament the defendants were authoi ised to borrow apy sum of money for the purposes of the said Acts, and to secure the same by then bonds, as in the said Acts mentioned, and that the defendants, in pursuance of the said Acts, had, upon the clay of the date of the bond, boi rowed of T [781] Pooley S0001 , for enabling them to cany the purposes of the said Acts into execution, the condition of the said writing obligatory was declaied to be, &c , (setting out the (c) Pollock, C B , Alderson, B , Platt, B 1 I Gft HORTON r WESTMINSTRR TMPROVRMEN'T COMMISSIONERS 7 EX 782 (oudition, which wa for payment of the principal at the end of three yoais, and interest half-yearly) The deolaiation then stated, fch.it the condition was subject to ,i proviso, enabling the defendants to pay oft the pimcipal, on giving three calendar months' notice, and averted that the bond was duly stamped, and that, within fourteen days after the date thereof, a memorial, according to the provisions of the Westminster Improvement Act, 1845, was made by the defendants' clerk in the register of mortgages and bonds, of the number and date of the bond, and of the pai tie's thereto, with their proper additions, whet eupon T Poolcy then became entitled to the bond, and to all right and interest therein It then stated, that T Pooley, by deed duly stamped, in consideration of 50001 paid by the plaintiff, transferred to him the bond , and that within thirty days after the date thereof the deed was produced to the clerk of the defendants, who thereupon caused a memorial of the transfer to be made in the same manner as in the case of the original bond, whereupon the plaintiff became entitled to the benefit of the original bond The declaration then alleged, that 1251 was due for interest, arid was duly demanded ,, and that, although a reasonable time had elasped, no part had been paid, actio aecrevit &c The defendants pleaded (inter alia) seventhly-That they did not, in pursuance of the said Acts of Parliament, or of the Westminster Improvement Act, 1850, borrow of T. Pooley the sum of 50001 or any part thereof for enabling them to rarry the purposes of the Acts or any 01 either of them into execution, nor was the same lent or advanced by T Pooley or any other person for those pur poses That the writing obligatory was not made by the defendants for securing the payment of any Hum of money [782] borrowed or taken up by the defendants for the purposes of and undet the powers and provisions of the said Acts, or of the Westminster Improvement Act, 1850, or any or either of them Arid the defendants were not, under or by virtue of the said Acts, or any or either of them, directed, authorised, 01 empowered to make, the writing obligatory, nor was the same made by them under or by virtue or in pursuance of the said Acts, or any or either of them , and the same was made contrary to the provrsiong of those Acts Averments, that Poolay and the plaintiff had notice of the premises Verification Eighth plea-That, before the making of the writing obligatory, to wit, on &c , C Momsson and W Mackenzie were, subject to certain terms and conditions, entitled to receive from the defendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Official Manager of the Athenaeum Life Assurance Society v Pooley
...Company (Ibid. 718); Hillv. Manchester and Salford Water Works Company (2 B. & Ad. 544)'; Horton v. Westminster Improvement Commissioners (7 Exch. 780); Kirk v. Bell (16 Q. B. 290); Bryson v. Warwick and Birmingham Canal Company (4 De G. M. & G. 711); Ernest v. Nieholk (6 H. of L. Cas. 401)......
-
Pellatt v Marwick
...11 C. B. 897, Hill v. The Manchester and Salford Water Works Company, 2 B. & Ad. 554, Horton v. The Westminster Improvement Commissioners, 7 Exch. 780, the Royal British Bank v. Twrguand, 5 Ellis & B. 248, 7 Ellis & B. 327, Agar v. The Athenceum Life-Assurance Society, 3 C. B. (N. S.) 725, ......
-
The Prince of Wales Life and Educational Assurance Company against Robert Palmer Harding, Official Manager of the Atheneaeum Life Assurance Society
...of the bonds was illegal, or inconsistent with the statutes under which they acted." Norton v. Westminster Improvement Commissioners (7 Exch. 780) is to the like effect. But Royal British Bank v. Turquand (5 E. & B. 248; 6 E. & B. 327) did turn upon the construction of stat. 7 & 8 Viet. c. ......
-
The Royal British Bank against Turquand. [in the COURT of QUEEN'S BENCH and EXCHEQUER CHAMBER]
...in a Court of law, uo defence against the plaintiffs, who were not privy to the fraud; Hffi'ton v. Westminster Improvement Commissioners (7 Exch. 780), where the defendants were held to be estopped from setting up as a defence that the money, borrowed on the bond which was the subject of th......