Maddox v Maddox

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date05 December 1747
Date05 December 1747
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 892



maddox v. maddox, Dec. 5, 1747- Party having notice through his agent, of sufficient to make him inquire as to the title, cannot protect himself by procuring the legal estate. Attorney, &c., may object to answer as a witness as to confidential communications.-(See Supplement, p. 48; 2 Gwill. Bac. Ab. 579, 580; 4 Tr. R. 759, and 2 Ves. jun. 189.) Edward Maddox suffered a recovery of an estate in A. descended to him in tail; and afterwards settled all his lands in A. upon his family : a tenement in A. of which he had the reversion after an estate for life, descended to him in tail by the death of the tenant for life ; he suffers a recovery of it, and devises it to his younger son in fee, because the elder had disobliged him : he afterward mortgages it, together with 200 that he had a power to charge on the settled estate, for the securing 200, which he borrowed; and dies. (Note : For the more particular circumstances of the case, the decree, &c., see Supplement, 46, &c.) [62] The mortgagee applies to the elder son for the money; who at first disputed the payment; but afterward submitted thereto, upon the mortgagee's assigning to him that tenement so charged, that he might stand in his place ; to which the mortgagee agreed upon his covenanting to indemnify him from making this assignment: he having heard of the younger son's title. The eldest son mortgaged the tenement to Betton, who had advanced the money for the payment of the former mortgage. The first question was, whether the plaintiff the younger son, had any title to this tenement; Betton insisting that the father had no right to devise it, being comprised within the settled estate. (But see the Supplement, p. 46.) Secondly, supposing he had; yet in equity there was no ground to take it away from him, who was a mortgagee for valuable consideration without notice of that title. Lord Chancellor. As to the first question : the plaintiff had a title subject to the father's mortgage, which was only so far a revocation of the will as to let in the mortgagee's security. The original settlement was only, of what was comprised in the recovery, which this tenement was not; the father not then having the freehold, nor intended so to be, as all the subsequent acts shew ; viz. his suffering a recovery of it, devising and mortgaging it. Then as to the second ; Betton says true, that he had a good right to take the conveyance from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Daly v Sydney Stock Exchange Ltd
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • Le Neve v Le Neve
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 9 December 1748
    ...will postpone a conveyance for the benefit of the principal which has been registered. Notice to agent is notice to a party. (Vide 1 Ves. sen. 61. Such notice must, however, be in the same transaction. Fitzgib. 207; 2 Atk. 242 ; 3 Atk. 294, 392; Barn. Ch. 220.)-S. C. 3 Atk. 646; Amb. 436. E......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT