Newman v Selfe
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 March 1864 |
| Date | 05 March 1864 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 471
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 33 L. J. Ch. 527; 10 L. T. 152; 12 W. R. 564.
[522] newman v. selfe. March 4, 5, 1864. [S. C. 33 L. J. Ch. 5-27; 10 L. T. 152; 12 W. R. 564.] The Court may direct a sale instead of a foreclosure, under the 15 & 16 Viet. c. 86, s. 48, without the consent of the mortgagor, and may direct the sale to take place at once. This suit was instituted by a first mortgagee against the mortgagee and several puistie incumbrancers, and it prayed a foreclosure. Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Bowring, for the Plaintiff, did not object to a sale of the property, under the 15 & 16 Viet. c. 86, s. 48, at the end of three months; but asked that, in the event of a redemption decree being made, one day might be appointed for all the incumbrancers to redeem. Mr. Jessel, Mr. Fitzhugh, Mr. E. G. White and Mr. Shebbeare, for the subsequent incumbrancers, also concurred in an early sale of the mortgaged property. They cited Hurst v. Hurst (16 Beav. 372). Mr. T. A. Roberts, for the mortgagor, did not object to the usual decree for foreclosure; but he stated that the property consisted of building land at Surbiton, and that an immediate and forced sale could not be effected without a considerable sacrifice and loss. He argued, that as a mortgagor was entitled to six months to redeem, so he was entitled to a delay of six months before a sale, in order to enable him to make arrangements for paying off the mortgages. He cited M'Lloyd v. WliOttty (22 L. J. (Ch.) 1038), in which the Court would not, in the absence or without the consent of the mortgagor, deprive him of the usual period of six months to redeem. He observed that, on payment of interest, the Court would extend the usual time given by the decree for [523] redemption, and that it had even been extended after a foreclosure absolute. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. I will consider the point, but I think that the Plaintiffs proposal to allow three months is very reasonable; the gale would then take place in June. I will see whether a mortgagor is entitled to insist, whatever may be the situation of the property, on delaying a sale for six months. March 5. the master of the rolls...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leigh v Lloyd
...Advance Company v. Brown (13 \V. R. 490); Seton on Decrees (page 449 (3d edit.)). Mr. Marten, in reply, referred to Newman v. Selfe (33 Beav. 522); Foster v. Harvey (12 W. R. 92). the lobd chancellor reserved judgment. July 25t the lord chancellor, after stating the facts of the case as men......