Jackson against Parker
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1770 |
| Date | 01 January 1770 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 447
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Jackson v. Innes, 1819, 1 Bli. 123. Discussed and explained, Dawson v. Bank of Whitehaven, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 219.
Case 339.-jackson against parker. [1770.] [See Jackson v. Innes, 1819, 1 Bli. 123. Discussed and explained, Dawson v. Bank of Whitehaven, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 219.] Tenant in tail and his wife join in a mortgage of the husband's estate, by lease and release and fine : the proviso reserves the redemption to the husband and wife and their heirs, &c., but the latter part of the deed declares the uses of the fine, after payment of the mortgage, to the husband and his heirs. The husband dies. Held, the husband was solely entitled to the estate, and that the wife had only a power of redemption to secure her dowers. (1) Assignment of a mortgage, and the loan increased after the will, is a revocation only pro tanto of the will. (Parsons v. Freeman, Ambl. 116.)-[Lib. Reg. 1770, A. fo. 314, nom. Jackson v. Butt.} At the Eolls, 12th Nov. 1770. John Jackson, tenant in tail of the estate in question, having occasion for money, and being married, by indentures of 23d and 24th May 1732, and fine, in which the wife joined, mortgaged the premises to Frances Stubbs for 300, in which was contained the following proviso, viz. That if the said John Jackson and Esther his wife, their heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, should pay the said 300 and interest; 448 JACKSON V. PARKER AMB. 688. then Frances Stubbs, her heirs or assigns, should reconvey the premises to the said John Jackson and Esther his wife, their heirs or assigns : and there was a clause at the end of the deed, which declared the uses of the fine to be (subject to payment of 300 and interest) to John Jackson, his heirs and assigns. [688] By indenture 27th and 28th February 1733, the mortgage was assigned to Anne Brown, by the executrix of Frances Stubbs, without the heir at law joining, redeemable as in the former deed, by Jackson and his wife, and their heirs, executors, and administrators. Jackson and his wife were parties to these deeds. On the 28th February 1737, John Jackson alone charged the premises with the further sum of 200. On the 20th July 1750, John Jackson made his will, duly attested, and devised all his lands, &c., to trustees to be sold, and after payment of debts, funeral expences, and costs, to divide the surplus money amongst the plaintiff and the defendant John Jackson, in the manner therein...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heather v O'Neil
...Appellant) to Reeve v. Hicks (2 Sim. & St. 403), Anaon v. Lee (4= Sim. 364), Saeheverel v. Frogate (1 Vent. 161), Jacksm v. [407] Parker (Amb. 687), Co. Litt. (page 47, a.), Cholmtmileley v. Clmttm (2 Jac. & W. 1), Clark v. Bwgh (2 Coll. 221). The other arguments relied upon appear sufficie......
-
Anson v Lee
...himself in fee. The cases cited for the Plaintiff were Perkins v. Walker (1 Vern. 97), Thorne v. Thome (Ibid. 141, 182), Jackson v. Parker (Amb. 687), Innes v. Jackson (16 Ves. 356, and 1 Bligh, 104), Busconibe v. Hare (G Dow, P. C. 1), Reeve v. Hicks (2 Sim. & Stu. 403), Bennett v. Aburrow......
-
Power v Power
...Appeal. POWER and POWER. Jackson v. ParkerENR Amb. 687. Hall v. DenchENR 1 Vern. 329, 342. Parsons v. FreemanENR 3 Atk. 741. Jackson v. ParkerENR Amb. 687. Arthur v. BokenhamENR 11 Mod. 148. Sparrow v. HardcastleENR 3 Atk. 798. Parsons v. FreemanENR 3 Atk. 741. Goodtitle v. OtwayENR 7 T. R.......