Miles v Langley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 May 1831 |
| Date | 27 May 1831 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 39 E.R. 15
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. on Appeal, 2 Russ. & My., 626.
[39] mlles r. lanuley. llolh. Nor. 19, 1829. [S. C. on Appeal, 2 Russ. & My., 626.] Where the possession is vacant, a purchaser is not bound to inquire of the late occupier what was the nature of his title. Under an agreement of exchange between A, who held lands under a college lease, and B, the owner of an adjoining estate, B occupied part of the college lands, and A had occupied, along with the residue of the leasehold, part of B's estate ; A having become bankrupt, the college leasehold was sold, and was described in the particulars of sale, as "late the residence of A." Held, that the purchaser was not to be considered as having implied notice of the agreement of exchange, and that he had a right to recover by ejectment that portion of the leasehold which was in B's occupation. Trenchard was owner of the Abbots Leigh estate, which consisted partly of certain lands called Woodclose. An adjoining messuage and certain other lands, of 16 MILES V. LANGLEY 1EUSS. & M. . which one acre and a half constituted part of a close called Cullhays, were holdeu by Ames Hellicar under the College of Winchester, by a lease for twenty-one years, renewable by custom at the end of every seven years. The portion of Cullhays comprised in Hellicar's lease, being at some distance from the other lands demised by the college, had been in the occupation of Trenchard: and, in 1798, he and Hellicar entered into an agreement to exchange a part of Woodclose, which was immediately adjoining to the college lands, for Hellicar's part of Cullhays; the exchange being to continue so long as the parties, or those claiming under them, were entitled to the respective properties. In 1810 the Plaintiff Miles became the purchaser of the Abbots Leigh estate. The lands, acquired under the agreement of 1798, were comprised in the conveyance to him: and he had been, ever since 1810, in the occupation of them, and had enclosed them in his park. Ames Hellicar renewed his lease from time to time; and by his will, dated in 1811, devised the leasehold to his son Thomas Hellicar. He died; and Thomas Hellicar entered into possession of that part of Woodclose which had been given in exchange for part of Cullhays, and of all the premises comprised in the lease, except that part of Cullhays. [40] In 1819 Thomas Hellicar became bankrupt; and his assignees put up the leasehold to sale by public auction. In the particulars of sale the premises were described as a dwelling-house with lawn, and about four acres of land attached (1), two hothouses, &c., "late the residence of Thomas Hellicar;" and the tenure was stated to be leasehold under the college, at a quit-rent of 1 a year. Langley became the purchaser. At the time of the purchase he had no actual notice of the agreement of exchange between Treuchard and Ames Hellicar; and he entered into possession of the exchanged part of Woodclose, considering it to be land comprised in the lease from the college. That lease he renewed, and assigned it to his sisters the Defendants; who, being afterwards informed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Penny v Watts
...had they existed; Crofton v. Qrmsby (2 Sch. & Lef. 583), Taylor v. Stibbert (2 Ves. jun. 437), Miles v. Langley (1 Russ. & m! 39. S. C. 2 Russ. & M. 626), Jones v. Smith (1 Hafe, 43); that, with the exception of that single charge which alleges [162] constructive notice, the whole equity of......