Minn v Stant
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 July 1851 |
| Date | 29 July 1851 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 1032
ROLLS COURT
For subsequent proceedings, see 15 Beav. 49.
[190] minn v. stant. July 19, 1849. [For subsequent proceedings, see 16 Beav. 49.] The trustees of a dissenting chapel mortgaged it under their powers, and the deed contained a power of sale. The mortgagee conveyed it to A. B., and in a suit by the trustees, insisting that A. B. was mortgagee and not a purchaser from the mortgagee, Held, that some of the subscribers were necessary parties. In 1839 a piece of land was conveyed to trustees for a dissenting congregation. The trusts declared were, amongst others, when required by the major part of the other subscribers for the time being, members of the congregation, to mortgage the property, and upon a like requisition to sell. The property was, in 1830, mortgaged for 600, and the mortgage deed contained a power of sale. The mortgage was afterwards transferred to Hawley, who subsequently conveyed to Stant, and he immediately sold the property to a railway company for 1100. Thia bill was filed by five of the trustees against Stant and the remaining trustees, insisting that Stant ought, under the circumstances alleged, to be con-[191]-sidered a mortgagee of the property, and as such liable to account for the difference between the amount due on the mortgage, and the 1100 for which the property had been sold. The bill prayed a declaration, that Stant ought to be considered as an assignee of the mortgage, and not a purchaser of the premises under the power of sale, and for accounts; and that the balance might be secured for the benefit of the trustees of the chapel as part of the trust estate thereof. The Defendant Stant insisted that he was a purchaser and not mortgagee ; and he, by his answer, submitted that the then subscribers, members of the congregation, were necessary parties. He stated he had been informed, and believed, that they amounted to twenty only. The cause was sent down, upon the objection, for want of parties. Mr. Giffard, for Stant. The subscribers are necessary parties, in order that a complete and final determination of the rights of the persons interested may be made. If they be not made parties, and the Defendants should succeed in this suit, the absent parties will not be bound by the decree, and any of them may still take proceedings against the Defendants for the same purpose. He cited Richardson v. Hastings (7 Beavan, 323), Roberts v. Tunstall (4 Hare, 257), Mozley v. Alston (1 Phil. 790), Harrison v. Stewardson (2 Hare, 530). Mr. Turner and Mr. James Campbell, for the Plain tiffs. It is not necessary to make the cestuis que trust parties to a suit, involving a contest between trustees [192] and third parties. (Franco v. Franco, 3 Ves. 75. Bridget v. Hames, 1 Colly. 72.) UBEAV.1M. HARRISON V. GRIMWOOD 1033 This is a case between mortgagor and mortgagee ; the trustees alone, who are the mortgagors, might have filed a bill against the mortgagee alone to redeem, and there is no reason for framing this bill on a different principle. They cited Wallworth v. Holt (4 Myl. & Or. 619). Mr. Giffard, in reply. In a suit to redeem, all persons interested must be parties. (See Qsbourn v. Fallows, 1 Euss. & M. 741.) the MASTER OF the rolls [Lord Langdale]. I do not think I have heard any answer to the argument, that if the Defendant succeeds, he will still be left open to another bill at suit of the subscribers. My opinon is, that there ought to be an amendment, by making some of them parties.
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 454
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 20 L. J. Ch. 614; 15 Jur. 1095.
[49] minn v. stant. July 29, 1851. [S. C. 20 L. J. Ch. 614; 15 Jur. 1095.] Trustees of a chapel, with the assent of the majority of the men subscribers, were authorised to mortgage or sell it. They mortgaged it for 600, with a power of sale. The mortgagee conveyed to Stant, who sold it to a company for 1100. The trustees filed a bill against Stant, insisting that he was a mortgagee and not a purchaser, and, offering to affirm the sale to the company, sought to recover the surplus purchase-money, after deducting the mortgage. Held, that the men subscribers were necessary parties. In 1829 a piece of land was conveyed to trustees for a meeting-house for a dissenting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v Coventry
...Beaumont v. Meredith (3 Ves. & B. 180); Richardson v. Larpent (2 Y. & C. C. C. 507); Richardson v. Hastings (11 Beav. 17); Minn v. Slant (15 Beav. 49); Hallett v. Dawdall (16 Jur. 462); Underwood's cote (5 De G. M. & G. 677); Pearce v. Piper (17 Ves. 1); Clements v. Bowes (\ Drew. 684). Mr.......
-
Minn v Stant
...to add parties by amendment or supplemental bill, a Plaintiff may do both. This bill being found defective for want of parties (see 15 Beav. 49), liberty was given to add parties by amendment or supplemental bill. The Plaintiffs not only added parties by amendment, but filed a long suppleme......