Lee v Howlett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 March 1856 |
| Date | 11 March 1856 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 69 E.R. 893
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 4 W. R. 406. See Arden v. Arden, 1885, 29 Ch. D. 707; In re Richards, 1890, 45 Ch. D. 597; In re Wyatt [1892], 1 Ch. 195.
Mortgages. Notice. Equitable Interest in Real Estate. Chose in Action. Priority.
[531] lee v. howlett. March 11, 1856. fe. C. 4 W. E. 406. See Arden v. Arden, 1885, 29 Ch. D. 707 ; In re Eichards, 1890, 45 Ch. D. 597 ; In re Wyatt [1892], 1 Ch. 195.] Mortgages. Notice. Equitable Interest in Heal Estate. Chose in Action. Priority. A subsequent mortgagee of an equitable interest in a share of residuary real estate without notice of the prior mortgage, does not obtain priority over the former mortgagee, by first giving notice of his security to the trustee in whom the legal estate is vested; notwithstanding that, by a deed of arrangement, made previously to the mortgages, between the mortgagor and the other persons interested in the real estate, their interests were treated as personal estate. But it is otherwise if the estate is vested in the trustee by a devise to him in trust to sell and to divide the proceeds among several persons, of whom the mortgagor is one, and the mortgages are of the mortgagor's share in such proceeds; because then, although the mortgages may have been made before any sale took place, the subject of them could only, as regarded the mortgagor's interest therein, be considered a chose in action. Timothy Tripp Lee, by his will, dated the 30th of June 1840, amongst other devises, gave to his wife Elizabeth (since deceased) certain freehold and leasehold-hereditaments, known as Dell's Manor farm, to hold the same for her life; and, after her decease, the testator directed that the same should be sold by public auction, and that the money should be equally divided among his surviving children; and the-testator devised and bequeathed the residue of his property, as well funded or otherwise, to his wife for her life, and after her death to be equally divided amongst hia surviving children. And he appointed his wife and his sons, the Plaintiff, Timothy Lee, and Cornelius Lee (since deceased), executrix and executors of his will. The testator died on the 29th of December 1840, leaving his widow and eleven children surviving him. By a deed of arrangement, dated in 1841, and executed by all the children (except one who had died), it was mutually agreed that all the property devised by the testator [532] amongst his surviving children...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daniel v Freeman
...14 Sim. 76. Wilmot v. PikeENR 5 Hare, 14-20. Jones v. JonesENR 8 Sim. 633. Rooper v. HarrisonENR 2 K. & J. 86. Lee v. HowlettENR 2 K. & J. 531. Re Hughes' TrustsENR 2 H. & M. 89. Rochard v. FultonENR 1 Jo. & Lat. 413; 7 Ir. Eq. R. 131. Re WardENR 2 J. & H. 191. Doe d. Guest v. BennettENR 6 ......
-
Blagrave v Routh
...that, in the Taxing Master's office, he would never strike off so much as was omitted in the sum for which he executed the security. 2K.&J.531. LEE V. HOWLETT 893 That is the obvious conclusion; and I confess I never saw a case so unfairly presented to the Court as the present has been on t......
-
The Estate of David Vandeleur Roche, Owner; John Vanderkiste, Petitioner
...L. r. Ir. 144. Jones v. WilliamsENR 24 Beav. 47. Dearle v. HallENR 3 Russ. 1. Daniel v. Freeman Ir. R. 11 Eq. 233, 638. Lee v. HowlettENR 2 K. & J. 531 Hughes' TrustsENR 2 H. & M. 89. Ashton v. Dalton 2 Col. 565. Ex parte Bisdee 1 M. D. & De G. 333. Pryce BuryENR 2 Drew. 42. Burke's EstateU......
-
The Consolidated Investment and Insurance Company v Riley
...Sim. 76) it was held that the doctrine did not extend to the assignment of an equitable interest in a chattel real. In Lee v. Hewlett (2 K. & J. 531) Vice-Chancellor Wood expressly laid it down that the notice must be given to the parties through whom the property must pass. Here, as in the......