Russel v Russel
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 May 1783 |
| Date | 16 May 1783 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 28 E.R. 1121
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
russel against russel. [16 May 1783.] Lords Commissioners, Lord Loughborough, Ashhurst. Pledge of a lease carried into effect, against assignees of a bankrupt.(l) Evidence of the bankrupt, he having had his allowance and certificate allowed to be read. A lease having been pledged by a person (who afterwards became a bankrupt) to the plaintiff, as a security for a sum of money lent to the bankrupt [and other sums in which he was indebted to him], the pledgee brought this bill for a sale of the leasehold estate.(l) Mr. Lloyd (for the plaintiff) merely stated the case, and that the plaintiff had a lien upon the estate. Mr. Kenyan (for the defendants, the assignees) insisted the plaintiff's claim was against the law of the land ; for that it would be charging land without writing, which is against the 4th clause of the statute of frauds. Lord Loughborough. In this case it is a delivery of the title to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration.-The Court has nothing to do but to supply the legal formalities.-In all these cases the contract is not to be performed, but is executed. Ashhurst, Lord Commissioner. Where the contract is for a sale, and is admitted so to be, it is an equivocal act to be explained, whether the party was admitted as tenant or as purchaser.-So here it is open to explanation, upon what terms the lease was delivered. [270] A question arose as to reading the bankrupt's evidence, he having had his C. vill.-36 1122 EX PARTE CRINSOZ 1 BRO. C. C. 270. allowance and certificate, but the Court suffered it to be read, thinking him not bound to refund. . An issue was directed to try whether the lease was deposited as a security for the sum advanced by the plaintiff to the bankrupt. Upon the trial the jury found it was deposited as a security. (Reg. Lib. 1782, B. fol. 402 b.) (The reporter has been informed that this cause,came on afterwards (though he has not been able to ascertain the date) before Lord Thurlow, on the equity reserved, -when his Lordship ordered that the lease should be sold, and the plain tiff paid his money. See accordingly per Lord Eldon, C., 9 Ves. 117. The same point has been since determined in the cases of Feather stone v. Fenwick, May 1784, and Hurford v. Carpenter, 17th and 18th of April 1785, where Lord Thurlow held that the deposit of deeds entitled the holder to have a mortgage, and to have his lien effectuated ; although there was no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Bank of Kuwait Plc v Sahib
...title deed with Sogenal just as much as if there had been actual delivery to Sogenal. He relied on the rule which has operated since Russel v. Russel (1783) 1 Bro. C.C. 269 to which I referred at the beginning of this judgment. He did not dispute that the basis of the rule, as expounded in ......
-
Korda v Australian Executor Trustees (SA) Ltd
...it claimed. 182 Avco Financial Services Ltd v White [1977] VR 561 ; Re Universal Management Ltd [1983] NZLR 462. 183 Russel v Russel (1783) 1 Bro CC 269 [ 28 ER 1121]; Bank of New South Wales v O'Connor (1889) 14 App Cas 273 at 282; UTC Ltd (In liq) v NZI Securities Australia Ltd (1991) 4 W......
- Whitworth v Gaugain
- Cooney v Burns