Noel v Bewley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 June 1829 |
| Date | 22 June 1829 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 938
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Doubted, Smith v. Osborne, 1857, 6 H. L. C. 375; 10 E. R. 1341.
Presumption. Grantor and Grantee.
[103] noel v. bewley. June 22, 1829. [Doubted, Smith v. Osborne, 1857, 6 H. L. C. 375 ; 10 E. R. 1341.] Presumption. Grantor and Grantee. In 1711 a mortgage for a term of years was made to A. In 1712 a mortgage in fee of the estate was made to S. in trust for A. In 1714 the term was assigned to C. in trust for A. to attend, &c., and then the equity of redemption in fee was conveyed to A. In 1717 A., reciting that he was seised in fee subject to a lease for 99 years made by a prior owner, grants and confirms that lease. Subsequent owners, in their wills and deeds, used terms adapted to pass the legal estate, granted leases for long terms and exercised other acts of ownership. A reconveyance of the legal fee was presumed. A contingent remainder-man conveyed his interest to secure a debt; the remainder was afterwards destroyed by the tenant of the prior estate ; the remainder-man afterwards acquired a new interest in the property under the will of that tenant. Held, that it was available to the creditor. By an indenture of the 31st January 1711, and made between Thomas Edwin of the first part, Joseph Webb of the second part, and John Askew of the third part, in consideration of £600 paid by Askew to Edwin, being the debt of Webb, Edwin assigned and Webb confirmed the manor and advowson of Liddiard Millicent, and certain other hereditaments in Wiltshire, to Askew, for the remainder of a term of 498 years, which commenced in the year 1710, subject to redemption on payment of £600 and interest. In March 1711 Webb charged the premises with the payment to Askew of the further sum of £400 and interest. By indentures of lease and release of the 23d and 24th of May 1712, made between Sir J. Tillie of the first part, Webb of the second part, and John Shiers of the third part, after reciting a prior mortgage in fee of the premises made by Webb to Sir J. Tillie, Tillie, in consideration of £166, 13s. 6d. which was then due to him upon that mortgage, and which was paid by Shiers, conveyed, and Webb released and confirmed, the premises unto Shiers and his heirs, subject to redemption on payment of £166, 13s. 6d. with interest. [104] By an indenture of the 16th of June 1712, and made between Webb of the 3 SIM. 108. NOEL V. BEWLEY 939 first place, Askew of the second part, and Shiers of the third part, after reciting the prior mortgage deeds, and that the £166, 13s. 6d. was the money of Askew, and that the name of Shiers was only made use of in trust for Askew, and that Webb had borrowed from him the further sum of £813, which, together with the sums before lent and the interest thereof to that time, made, in the whole, £2000 ; Webb demised the premises to Askew for the remainder of the term of 498 years, subject to redemption on payment of £2000 and interest, and Shiers covenanted that he, his heirs and assigns, would, at the request of Askew, his executors, administrators and assigns, do all such acts as should be required for further assigning the trust created as aforesaid. In Nov. 1712 Webb charged the premises with the payment to Askew of the further sum of £300 and interest. By an indenture of the 7th of June 1714, and made between Askew and Shiers of the first part, Webb of the second part, and John Casson of the third part, after reciting the prior deeds, and that the £2000 and £300 and interest had not been paid, and that Askew had agreed with Webb for the purchase of the equity of redemption of the premises, Askew assigned the premises to Casson for the residue of the term of 498 years, in trust for Askew, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and to attend the inheritance; and Shiers covenanted that he, his heirs and assigns, would stand seised of the premises conveyed and assigned to him, in trust for Askew, his heirs and assigns. [105] By indentures of lease and release of the 8th and 9th of June 1714, and made between Webb of the one part and Askew of the other part, Webb, in consideration of £3300, 13s. 4d. paid to him by Aakew, conveyed the premises to Askew, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns. And Webb covenanted that the premises were free from all ineumbrances except the term of 498 years. Askew, who afterwards became Sir John Askew, Knight, continued in possession of the premises so conveyed to him till his death. By his will, dated the 6th of August 1739, he devised the advowson of Liddiard Millicent to A. Kettelby, S. Cranmer and John Husey, in fee, upon trust, during the life of his daughter, Catherine Myers, to present such person to the Church as they and she should approve of, and, after her death, to present such persons as the heir male of her body and the trustees should appoint, and, for want of such heir, in trust for the sole direction and appointment of the trustees and their heirs and the right heirs of the testator : and he devised the manor of Liddiard Millicent and all his other estates, in the county of Wilts, and their appurtenances and all his estates situate in Broughton and Dunnerdale in Lancashire, and all his other freehold and copyhold estates in England, to his brother, Ferdinando Askew, his heirs and assigns, subject to the payment of his debts and legacies, and upon condition that F. Askew should not sell the manor or estate at Liddiard Millicent without the consent of the testator's executors, and that he should keep the same in repair...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Osborne v Smith
...OSBORNE and SMITH. Noel v. BewleyENR 3 Sim. 103. Jones v. Kearney 1 Dr. & War. 158. Tayleur v. DickensonENR 1 Russ. 521. Cole v. Sewell 2 H. L. Cas. 186; S. C., 4 Dr. & War. 1. Smith v. BakerENR 1 Y. & C., C. C., 223. Woodcock v. DorsetUNK 3 B. C. C. 569. Smith v. BakerENR 1 Y. & C., C. C.,......
-
Smith v Baker
...acquiring a title is compelled to make good the title to the vendeej the counsel in support of the exceptions cited Noel v.Bewley (3 Sim. 103).: , In answer to a question put by the Court, it was admitted that no bill had been filed by Baker against the other Defendants to set aside the dee......
-
Thomas Kent and Aquila Kent v Sadleir Stoney and Others
...STONEY and others. Jones v. Kearney 1 Dr. & War. 159. Sibourne v. PowelENR 2 Vern. 11. Morse v. FaulknerENR 1 Anst. 11. Noel v. BewleyENR 3 Sim. 103. Smith v. Osborne 6 H. L. Cas. 390. Taylor v. Stibbert 2 Ves. Jun. 437. Steele v. MitchellUNK 3 Ir. Eq. Rep. 1. Moore v. Butler 2 Sch. & Lef. ......
-
Arthur Smith, - Appellant; Lucinda Caulfield Osborne, and Others, - Respondents
...was in expectation. The principle being1 thus clear, what is there to affect its application here? There is the case of Noel v. Bewley (3 Sim. 103), which will be relied on by the Respondents. There A., a remainder man, conveyed his interest to secure a debt; the remainder was afterwards de......