Roberts v Croft
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 1857 |
| Date | 10 December 1857 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 44 E.R. 887
BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD CRANWORTH.
S. C. 27 L. J. Ch. 220; 6 W. R. 144. See Layard v. Maud, 1867, L. R. 4 Eq. 405; Thorpe v. Holdsworth, 1868, L. R. 7 Eq. 147; Northern Counties of England Fire Insurance Company v. Whipp, 1884, 26 Ch. D. 491; Manners v. Mew, 1885, 29 Ch. D. 728; Taylor v. Russell, 1890, 59 L. J. Ch. 760.
Reports of CASES HEARD and DETERMINED by the LORD CHANCELLOR and the COURT OF APPEAL IN CHANCERY. 1858. By .1. P. DE GEX and H. CADMAN JONES, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. 1859. Vol. II. [1] roberts v. croft. Before the Lord Chancellor Lord Cranworth. Dec. 10, 1857. [S. C. 27 L. J. Ch. 220; 6 W. R. 144. See Layard v. Maud, 1867, L. R. 4 Eq. 405 ; Thorpe v. Holdsworth, 1868, L. R. 7 Eq. 147 ; Northern Counties of England Fire Insurance Company v. Whipp, 1884, 26 Ch. D. 491 ; Manners v. Mew, 1885, 29 Ch. D. 728 ; Taylor v. Russell, 1890, 59 L. J. Ch. 760.] A lady lent money to her solicitor upon a deposit of title-deeds, with a written memorandum. The deeds thus deposited did not comprise the later title-deeds, and so did not shew that the depositor had any interest in the estate. The solicitor afterwards deposited the remaining deeds with his bankers to secure the balance of his account. Held, that the lady had not, in omitting to call for the other deeds, been guilty of such gross negligence as to postpone her security to that of the bankers. This was an appeal by J. P. Bult and J. F. Bult, bankers, from so much of a decree of the Master of the Rolls as postponed an equitable mortgage to which they were entitled on an estate of C. R. Roberts, deceased, to another equitable mortgage vested in a Miss Willes. The case is reported 24 Beav. 223. In January 1838, Roberts, who was a solicitor, borrowed from Miss Willes, who was a client of his, the sum of 2000, and deposited with her certain title-deeds with a list (1) thereof, at the foot of which was written the following memorandum:- " Memorandum. The above-mentioned deeds are [2] deposited with Miss Anne Willes as a security for the sum of 2000 and interest at the rate of 4, lOa. per cent, per annum, to be held by her until repayment of the same, with all costs, charges and expenses which may hereafter be occasioned by non-payment of such principal money and interest as aforesaid. As witness my hand this 6th day of March 1838.-charles R. roberts, Solicitor, 35 Seething Lane, 1838. " N.B.^-The interest to commence from the 22d day of January 1838." The deeds thus deposited were an incomplete set of deeds relating to an estate in Caernarvonshire belonging to Roberts, and did not shew that he had any interest in the property. They commenced with a settlement of 24th August 1768, made on the marriage of Robert Williams, and carried down the title regularly to deeds of the 20th and 21st of March 1826, made to lead the uses of a recovery suffered by John Williams the elder and John Williams the younger; after which followed indentures of lease and release of the 21st and 22d of December 1826, being a mortgage in fee by John Williams the elder and John Williams thu younger to a 888 ROBERTS V. CROFT 2DBO. &J.3. Mr. Hughes to secure 1300. No subsequent deeds were either comprised in the list or actually deposited with Miss Willes. On 28th March 1839, Roberts, being indebted to the Messrs. Bult on the balance of his banking account, deposited with them by way of equitable mortgage, with a written memorandum, title-deeds relating to various properties of his. Among them were the following deeds relating to the Caernarvon estate, viz., a deed of 16th March 1765; duplicates of the above indentures of 24th August 1768, and 20th and 21st March 1826, but no intermediate deeds; indentures of lease and release of 12th [3] and I3th April 1833, made between the assignees in bankruptcy of John Williams the alder and John Williams the younger of the first part, the Governor and Company of the Cbpper Miners of the second part, John Williams the younger of the third part, and C. R. Roberts of the fourth part; indentures of lease and release of 5th and 6th May 1835, made between John Williams the younger of the first part, C. R. Roberts of the second part, and Rev. G. Roberts of the third part; and indentures of lease and release of 26th and 27th February 1838, being a reconveyance by Hughes, the above-mentioned mortgagee, to C. R. Roberts. In the administration of the estate of Roberts the question arose which of these two equitable mortgages was entitled to priority, and the Master of the Rolls decided that there was no ground for depriving Miss Willes of the advantage derived from priority of date. The Messrs. Bult appealed. Mr. Roundell Palmer and Mr. Goldsmid, for the Appellants. Misa Willes was guilty of gross negligence in allowing Roberts to retain the most material deeds, giving to her no deeds which shewed that he had any interest in the property. Hewitt v. Loosemore (9 Hare, 449) clearly lays down the rules of law on the subject of postponement for negligence. Roberts was Miss Willes's solicitor, and she is affected by his knowledge that none of the most material deeds were delivered to her. The fact, that he had an interest, does not alter the case; Majoribanks v. Hovenden (Drury, 11). We do not say that a person taking a mortgage by deposit is bound to examine whether the [4] deposited deeds form a complete title, out we submit he is bound to see whether they shew an apparent title in the depositor. It is grass negligence to accept, without inquiry, a deposit of deeds which shew no shadow of title in the depositor ; and if Miss Willes had made inquiry, she would either have got the other deeds, or have been informed that Roberts was keeping them to raise money on them. We took deeds shewing a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Jones v Dunkel
-
Hunt v Elmes
...(9 Hare, 449); Colynr v. Finch (5 H. of L. Ca. 905); Evans v. Sicknell (6 Ves. 174); Barnet v. Weslon (12 Ves. 130); Roberts v. Croft (2 De G. & J. 1); Espin v. Pemhertm (3 De G. & J. 547). Mr. Follet and Mr. Eddis, for the Appellants. If this decision can be sustained the state of the law ......
-
Viney & Chaplin
...second proposition, no written authority is produced, or as it would appear has ever been given by the vendor; it is said, that no such 2 DE G. & J. 1S3. IN RE LONDON AND EASTERN BANKING CORPORATION 1077 authority was asked for, but I think it was incumbent on the vendor asserting the autho......
-
Stackhouse v Countess of Jersey
...any better title than he possessed himself: Colyer v. Finch (5 H. L. Cas. 905), Beckett v. Gordley (1 B. C. C. 353), Roberts v. Croft (2 De G. & J. 1), Manningford v. Tolemm (1 Coll. 670), Moore v. Jerms (2 Coll. 60), Tylee v. Webb (6 Beav. 552), Evans v. Bickwell (6 Ves. 174), Hunt v. Elme......