John Doe on the Joint Demise of Robert Williams and Eight Others and on the several Demise of John Mosley, v John Lloyd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 June 1840 |
| Date | 27 June 1840 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 133 E.R. 501
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 1 Scott, N. R. 505; 10 L. J. c. P. 128.
1MAN.&G.671. DOB V, LLOYD 501 [671] john doe on the joint demise or egbert williams and eight others, AND ON THE SEVERAL DEMISE OF JOHN MOSLEY, V. JOHN LLOYD. June 27, 1840. [S. C. 1 Scott, N. E. 505; 10 L. J. C. P. 128.] Under the Mortmain Act of 9 G-. 2, c. 36, the production of an indenture having an indorsement which purports to be a memorandum of the inrolment of the indenture in Chancery on a certain day, and to be signed by a party who is shewn to have acted as clerk of the inrolment, though not so designated in the indorsement, is sufficient proof of the inrolment and of the time at which it took place, without proof of the handwriting of the officer signing the memorandum.-The charitable uses to which land is conveyed, may be declared by words of reference to another deed relating to other property. Ejectment, brought to recover the possession of dwelling houses and land in Llanbester in the county of Eadnor. This cause was first tried before Coleridge J., at the Spring assizes, at Presteign, in 1839, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff, which was set aside on the ground of misdirection (a). The cause was tried there again before Gurney B. at the Summer assizes, 1839. The lessors of the plaintiff made title under a conveyance from the Eev. David Lloyd, the late vicar of Llanbester, upon whose death the defendant had entered as his heir. By indentures of lease and release, of 3d and 4th July 1836, the release being made between the said David Lloyd of the first part, the lessors of the plaintiff of the second part, and Thomas Graham, Wesleyan minister, the superintendent preacher of the circuit in the Methodist [672] connection, in which the lands thereinafter described are situate, of the third part, after reciting a conveyance in fee to Lloyd, and the contract of sale with the lessors of the plaintiff, Lloyd conveyed the premises in question to them in the general form of conveyance first adopted by the Methodist society in 1832. The lease and release were executed by all the parties thereto in the presence of two witnesses, and the grantor's receipt for the purchase-money, 4901., was attested by .two witnesses. The lease and release were produced, with the following indorsement thereon:- "Inrolled in His Majesty's High Court of Chancery the 1st day of December 1836, being first duly stamped, according to the tenor of the statute made for that purpose. "D.DREW." E. M. Eeece, the plaintiff's attorney, who produced the indentures, stated, that shortly before the former trial, he went to the inrolment office, and, inquiring for Mr. Drew, was informed, by a clerk in that office, that Mr. Drew was in the six clerks: office, a building under the same roof, but entered by another door, and without any internal communication; that he there saw a person whom he afterwards knew to be Mr. Drew, and shewed him the indorsement; that Mr. Drew acknowledged his signature thereto, and stated that he was the proper officer for inrolling deeds. For the defendant it was objected that the fact of inrolment had not been proved, and that the conveyance was therefore void under 9 G. 2, c. 36. The learned judge refused to nonsuit the plaintiff; but gave the defendant leave to move to enter a nonsuit. A verdict having been found for the plaintiff, E. V. Williams, in last Michaelmas term, obtained a rule nisi for entering a nonsuit on three grounds : 1st. [873] That the proof of the inrolment of the deeds of the 3d and 4th July 1836 was insufficient; 2dly. That the release ought to have exhibited the trusts on the face of the deed, and not as here, stated them only by reference (a) 5 New Cases, 741, where it is Stated that the money supposed to be the purchase money, was returned to two of the trustees; but there appears to have been no evidence to warrant this statement. The money said to have been given by the grantor, was money given by him to two persons, strangers to this transaction, and for a different purpose. And see 8 Scott, 93, S. C.; Doe d. Chandler v. Ford, 3 A. & E. 649; 5 N. & M. 209: 1 Harr. & Wooll. 378; Lord v. Wwdle, 3 New Cases, 680; 4 Scott, 402. 502 DOE V.i LLOYD 1 MAN. & G. 673. to the model-deed *; 3dly. That the conveyance was not " made to take effect in possession, for the charitable use intended, immediately from the making thereof." He also moved for a new trial on the insufficiency of the evidence ; but upon this point no rule was granted. * The conveyance by Lloyd was a release of freehold ground for the purpose of a Methodist chapel, with a declaration of trust, &c. by reference to the following " model-deed." " This indenture, made the day of in the year of ourLord 1832, between (the vendor) of the first part, and (the trustees) of the second part, and A. B., the superintendent preacher for the time being of the circuit in the Methodist connection, in which the piece of ground and hereditaments described, are situate, of the third part. " Whereas the said parties to these presents of the second, part, being possessed of certain sums of money, intended to be laid out in the purchase of a piece of ground and hereditaments, and in the erecting and building thereon a chapel or place of religious worship, with such appurtenances as may be thought convenient for the use of the people called Methodists, to be settled to the uses, upon the trusts, and in manner, hereinafter declared and contained or referred to, have in pursuance of the said intention contracted and agreed with the said (vendor) for the absolute purchase of the piece of ground and hereditaments hereinafter described, and released at or for the price or sum of 1.: Now this indenture witnesseth, that in pursuance of the said agreement, and in consideration of the said sum of 1. of lawful English money by the said persons, parties hereto of the second part, to the said (vendor) in hand paid out of the moneys in their hands, as aforesaid, at or before the sealing and delivery of these presents, the receipt whereof he the said (vendor) doth hereby acknowledge, arid doth hereby admit the same sum to be the full and bonfi, fide value of, and in full for, the purchase of, the ground and hereditaments described; and from the same sum and every part thereof, doth hereby...
To continue reading
Request your trial