Lord Midleton v Eliot
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
| Judgment Date | 11 March 1847 |
| Date | 11 March 1847 |
English Reports Citation: 60 E.R. 725
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C 11 Jur 742. See James v Rumsey, 1879, 11 Ch D 403.
Mortgagor and Mortgagee. Loss of deeds. Interest. Costs.
18 SIM. 131. LORD MIDLETON V. ELIOT 725 [531] lord mibleton v. eliot. March 9, 11, 1847. [S. C. 11 Jur. 742. . See James v.Aumsey^lSIQ, 11 Ch. D. 403.] Mortgagor and Mortgagee. Loss of Deeds. Interest. Costs. A. made a mortgage to B., and delivered to him the title-deeds of the estate. Some years afterwards A. gave B. notice of his intention to pay off the mortgage at the end of six months; but did not pay the money-until after that time, owing to B. not having offered him any indemnity that was satisfactory to him, in respect of B. having lost some of the deeds. B. then brought an ejectment for the estate ; whereupon A. filed a bill to redeem. The Court ^decreed a redemption, and ordered that a sum, which A. had paid for interest accrued on the mortgage money after the expiration of the six months, should be repaid to him; that B. should give him an .indemnity to be approved of by the Master, and also pay the costs of the ejectment and of the suit. This was a suit to redeem a mortgage in fee, and to restrain an ejectment which the mortgagee had brought to recover possession of the mortgaged estate, after the Plaintiff had given the mortgagee notice of his intention to payoff the mortgage on the 25th of- March 1842, being six months after the date of the notice, but which he did not do, because he was informed after he had served the notice, and after the mortgagee's solicitor had approved of a draft of the reconveyance of the estate-which the Plaintiffs solicitor had prepared and sent to him, that the mortgagee had lost three of the title-deeds relating, to the estate, and because the mortgagee had, not offered to indemnify him, in respect of the loss, in a manner that was satisfactory to him. The bill, which was filed in February 1843, prayed, in addition to the redemption and injunction, that an inquiry might be directed as to the loss of such of the title-deeds as were alleged to be lost; and, if it should appear that the same were in fact lost, by whom and under what circumstances they were lost; and that the mortgagee might either procure,all necessary parties to execute deeds to supply the place of the lost ones, or indemnify the Plaintiff from the consequences of the loss. [632] The injunction was granted on the 1st of April 1843. The order for it directed the Plaintiff to pay the mortgagee, on or before the 15th of that month, the principal sum secured by the mortgage, with interest up...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Rathner (Liquidator), in the matter of PE Capital Nominees Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Runner Investment Limited
...Ch 83 Kaolim Private v United Overseas Land Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 472 London City Council v Allen [1914] 3 KB 642 Lord Midleton v Eliot (1847) 15 Sim 531 Lord Strathcona Steamship Co Ltd v Dominion Coal Co Ltd [1926] AC 108 Manser v Dix (1857) 8 De GM & G 703; 44 ER 561 Noakes v Rice [1902] AC 2......
- Barratt v Gough-Thomas (No. 2)
-
R (Drohan) v Chairman and Justices of County Waterford
... ... Two gentlemen were appointed to the Commission of the Peace by the Duke of Devonshire as Lord Lieutenant of the county—one of these gentlemen having a distinctly adverse interest, since he ... ...
-
Douglas v Culverwell
...his solicitor. [Jones v. Shemffe (cited in Hosier v. Read, 9 Mad. 38 ; also in Sugden V. & P. vol. 1, p. 188, llth ed.), Lord Midleton v. Eliot (15 Sim. 531) were cited.] Mr. Greene replied. His Honour reserved judgment, which he delivered on the 22d of December 1861. the vice-chancello......
