Lord Braybrooke v Meredith
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 January 1843 |
| Date | 12 January 1843 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 60 E.R. 106
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 12 L. J. Ch. 289; 7 Jur. 114.
Stamp. Assignment. Order for Payment of Money.
[271] lord braybhooke . meredith. Nov. 15, 1842; Jan. 12, 1843. [S. C. 12 L. J. Ch. 289; 7 Jur. 114.] Stamp. Assignment. Order for Payment of Money. The interest of a sum secured by a mortgage of tithes being in arrear, the mortgagor wrote and gave to the mortgagee a letter to the lessee of the tithes, desiring him to pay the sum in arrear to the mortgagee, and to charge it to the mortgagor in settling for the tithes of the current year. The mortgagor sent the letter to the lessee, who undertook to pay the amount within a certain time. The payment, however, was never made. Held, that the letter was not an assignment in equity to the mortgagee of a debt due from the lessee to the mortgagor, but was an order for payment of money, which could not be enforced, because it was not stamped. In April 1832 Lord Kensington, being seised in fee of lands in Middlesex, and lessee, for certain lives, of the Rectory of Llambister in Radnorshire, mortgaged the lands and rectory to the Plaintiffs to secure 60,000 and interest; and Messrs. Heptinatall and Whittaker were appointed receivers of the rente of the mortgaged premises, Whittaker received the rents of the Middlesex estates; and thereout paid the interest of the 60,000; but neither he nor Heptinstall acted as receiver of the Radnorshire estates. The Defendant was in possession of those estates, as tenant to Lord Kensington, at the rent of 1050, under an agreement for a lease dated subsequently to the mortgage. The bill, however, represented that the agreement had been pub an end to, and that the Defendant was no longer in pos-[272]-session of the rectory as tenant to Lord Kensington, but that he received the profits of it as his lordship's agent or receiver. In 1838 Lord Kensington made a further charge on the mortgaged premises, for securing a further sum which the Plaintiffs had advanced to him; and the rents of the Middlesex estates having thereby become insufficient to pay the interest of the sums secured, the- Plaintiffs obtained from Lord Kensington a written order requiring Meredith to pay 700 to Messrs. Howe, Whittaker & Tatham, their solicitors. The order was dated the 20th November 1838, and was as follows :-" Please to remit to Messrs. Howe, Whittaker & Tatham 700, and charge it in the account with me in settling for the present...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v Morgan
...320. Emly v. CollinsENR 6 M. & S. 144. Firbank v. BellENR 1 B. & Ald. 36. Butts v. SwannENR 2 Brod. & Bing. 78. Braybrooke v. MeredithENR 13 Sim. 271. Hutchinson v. Heyworth 9 Ad. & Ell. 375. Parsons v. MiddletonENR 6 Hare 261. Matheson v. RossENR 2 H. L. C. 286. Diplock v. HammondENR5 De G......
-
Diplock v Hammond
...Webb (1 Esp. 129); Hutckinson v. Heyworth 9 A. & E. 375); Lucas v. Jones (5 Q. B. 949). They also referred to Lord Sraybrooke v. Meredith (13 Sim. 271); Cfreen v. Davies 4 B. & C. 235); Butts v. Swann'(2 Bro. & B. 78); Parsons v. Middleton (6 Hare, 261); Emly v. Collins (6 Mau. & Sel. 144);......
-
Re John Farrell; ex parte George D. Fottrell
...Ex parte South 3 Swanst. 392. Ryall v. RowlesUNK 2 W. & T., L. C., 615. Firbank v. BellENR 1 B. & Ald. 36. Lord Braybrooke v. MeredithENR 13 Sim. 271. Parsons v. MiddletonENR 6 Hare, 261. Jones v. Farrel 1 De G. & Jon. 208. Schank v. Moreland 1 Mad. Ch. Pr. 686. 304 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1860. ......
-
Diplock v Hammond The Guardians of the Poor of St. Mary's, Newington, v Hammond
...to pay 1500 out of the proceeds of a cargo of mahogany; but it was held invalid for want of a bill stamp. In Lord Braybrooke v. Meredith (13 Sim. 271) the language was, "please remit 700 (1) The language of the statute (schedule, pt. 1, tit. "Inland Bill" &c.), is as follows :-" The followi......