Longmate v Ledger
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 April 1860 |
| Date | 19 April 1860 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 66 E.R. 67
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 6 Jur. (N. S.) 481; 8 W. R. 386. Affirmed, see Clark v. Malpas, 1862, 4 De G. F. & J. 402; 45 E. R. 1239. See Fry v. Lane, 1888, 40 Ch. D. 322.
[157] LONGMATE V. LEDGER. ^^18,19,1860. [S. C. 6 Jur. (N. S.) 481; 8 W. K. 386. Affirmed, see Clark v. Malpas, 1862, 4 De G. F. & J. 402; 45 E. E. 1239. See Fry v, Lane, 1888, 40 Ch. D. 322.] Where a vendor of feeble intellect sold his property to a creditor for an inadequate price, the Court-on a bill filed by his heir impeaching the transaction-set aside the sale, but directed the deed to stand as a security for monies actually due, on the footing of a mortgage. Mere inadequacy of price is insufficient of itself to vitiate a sale; but where there is weakness in the mental capacity of the vendor, the sale cannot be sustained in this Court, unless the vendor has been adequately protected in the transaction. This bill was filed by the heiress at law of one John Mitchell, for the purpose of having set aside a sale of certain freehold cottages and land, which had been made by the vendor to Solomon Ledger, in 1857. The grounds on which the Plaintiff's case rested were that the vendor at the date of the sale was suffering from mental incapacity, and also that the price given was wholly inadequate. John Mitchell had been a farm labourer, but in the year 1856 he acquired as next of kin of James Mitchell, his brother, the sum of 900, which, by the advice of a Mr. Butler, he invested in the purchase of three freehold [158] cottages and eight acres of land at Willingham-by-Stow, and which were conveyed to him absolutely, with uses to bar dower. In July 1857 he agreed with his daughter and her husband (the Plaintiffs) to sell them the property in question in consideration of an annuity of 10s. a week to be paid to himself, and after his decease to his widow, with a stipulation that he was to live in one of the cottages rent free. Shortly after this arrangement the Plaintiff, Kobert Longmate, contracted with the Defendant, who was a builder at Gainsborough, to build a house on the land for 150. In August 1857 a quarrel took place between John Mitchell and the Plaintiffs, which resulted in the termination of the agreement of July 1857. The Plaintiff, Eobert Longmate, therefore requested the Defendant to substitute John Mitchell for him, which the Defendant agreed to do, and John Mitchell accordingly signed the substituted contract. In September 1857 John Mitchell, being then seventy-two years of age, agreed to sell his property to the Defendant for an annuity of 1 a week, to be secured on the property, on condition that he should be allowed to live in one of the cottages rent free, and be released from the debt of 150. On the 6th of October 1857 a deed was executed by John Mitchell carrying the above agreement into effect. One solicitor acted for both parties. On the 9th of June 1859 John Mitchell died intestate, having occupied one of the cottages rent free up to his death, and having received the annuity. The Plaintiffs subsequently filed this bill, impeaching the transaction, alleging that the Defendant had availed himself of the ignorance and mental weakness of the vendor to acquire the property for a grossly inadequate consideration. The bill alleged that the annual rental of the cottages and land at the death of the vendor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frankson (Barrington) v Monica Longmore
...it. There are a long line of cases dealing with this type of situation, starting from cases such as Longmate v Ledger (1860) 2 Giff. 157; 66 E.R. 67; Clark v Malpas (1862) 31 Beav. 80; 54 E.R. 1067; Blake v Monk (1864) 33 Beav. 419; 55 E.R 430; Fry v Lane (ante); Marshall v Canada Permanent......
-
Carroll v Carroll
...V COLREAVY 1940 IR 71 EVANS V LLEWELLIN 1 COX EQ CAS 333 PRIDEAUX V LONSDALE 1 DE G J & S 433 EVERITT V EVERITT 10 EQ 405 LONGMATE V LEDGER 2 GIFF 157 ANDERSON V ELSWORTH 3 GIFF 154 PHILLIPSON V KERRY 32 BEAV 628 WOLLASTON V TRIBE 9 EQ 44 BROCKLEHURST, IN RE 1978 CH 14 POWELL V POWELL 190......
-
Accc v Cg Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd
...Competition and Consumer Commission v C G Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) (2000) 96 FCR 491 at 502 [23]. 62Longmate v Ledger (1860) 2 Giff 157 at 163 [ 66 ER 67 at 63Blomley (1956) 99 CLR 362 at 428 per Kitto J. 64 (1787) 1 Cox 333 at 340 [ 29 ER 1191 at 1194]. 65Blomley (1956) 99 CLR 362 ......
-
Grealish v Murphy
...the circumstances the accounts will be directed without interest. (1) [1937] 4 All E. R. 34. (2) 3 Giff. 154. (3) L. R. 36 Ch. D. 145. (4) 2 Giff. 157. (5) L. R. 20 Eq. 328. (6) [1939] I. R. 317. (1) [1939] I. R. 317. (2) [1940] I. R. 71. (3) 8 H. L. Cas. 481. (1) 15 Eq. 121. (1) 6 De G., M......
-
THE UNCONSCIONABLE BARGAINS DOCTRINE IN ENGLAND AND AUSTRALIA: COUSINS OR SIBLINGS?
...(1754) 2 Ves Sen 516; 28 ER 330, 331 (Clarke MR); Wood v Abrey (1818) 3 Madd 417; 56 ER 558, 560-1 (Leach V-C); Longmate v Ledger (1860) 2 Giff 157; 66 ER 67, 69 (Stuart V-C); Clark v Malpas (1862) 4 De G F & J 401; 45 ER 1238, 1239-40 (Bruce LJ). (8) Capper (n 3) 403. (9) [1978] 1 WLR ......