Salter v Bradshaw Bradshaw v Salter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 July 1858 |
| Date | 21 July 1858 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 53 E.R. 858
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 28 L. J. Ch. 426; 5 Jur. (N. S.) 831.
[161] salter v. bhadshaw. brad.shaw v. salter. July 19, 20, 21, 1858. [S. C. 28 L. J. Ch. 426; 5 Jur. (N. S.) 831.] The purchase of a reversion cannot stand in equity unless the purchaser shews that he paid the full value for it. The sale of a reversion set aside after forty years, the vendor having instituted 26BEAV. 162. SALTEE V. BEADSHAW 859 proceedings for that purpose a year after it fell into possession, and the purchaser having failed to prove that he had paid full value for it. In 1795, and prior to the marriage between James Salter and Elizabeth Busby, articles were executed, whereby it was covenanted that some real estate at Bethnal Green belonging to Mrs. Salter should be settled on Mr. and Mrs. Salter for their lives, and afterwards, " to be equally divided between the issue of the intended marriage (if any), share and share alike, and in case there should be no such issue, then as therein mentioned. The marriage took place in 1795. In 1796 a settlement was executed, whereby the property was limited to the use of James Salter for life, with remainder to Mrs. Salter for life, with remainder to the use of the child, if only one, and if more than one, then of all the children of James Salter on the body of Elizabeth King Salter, his wife, lawfully to be begotten, to be equally divided between them, if more than one, as tenants in common in tail, with cross-remainders between them in tail, and on failure of the issue of all such children, to the use of the survivor of [162] James Salter and Elizabeth King, his wife, in fee-simple. There was issue of the marriage one child only, viz., the Plaintiff, the Reverend Henry George Salter, who attained twenty-one in 1817. He was then absolutely entitled in fee or in tail to the property, subject to the life interest in possession of his father James Salter (who was then aged fifty-four years), and to the life interest in remainder of Elizabeth King Salter (who was then aged forty-seven years) therein, and (as the Defendants alleged, but the Plaintiff did not admit) subject to the contingency of Ithere being one or more other child or children born of the said marriage of James Salter and Elizabeth King Salter, his wife. In 1818 the Plaintiff, being in want of money, sold his reversionary interest in the property to Mr. Bradshaw for 1200, and conveyed it by indentures...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v Bromley
...(2 Myl. & K. 456 ; 3 01. & Fin. 218); Newton v. Hunt (5 Sim. 511); The Earl of Aldbarough v. Trye (7 Cl. & Fin. 436); Walter v. Srailshaw (26 Beav. 161); Price v, Bernngton (3 Mac. & Gor. 486). May 30. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. There are, in this case, three suits, all of ......
-
Lord v Jeffkins
...for the Plaintiff, cited Boothby v. Boothby (1 Mac. & G. 604, and 15 Beav. 212); Baker v. Bent (1 Euss. & Myl. 224); Salter v. Bradshaw (26 Beav. 161); St. Aibyn v. Harding (27 Beav. 11); Dames v. Cooper (5 Myl. & Cr. 270); Perfect v. Lane (30 Beav. 197, and 3 De G. F. & J. 369). Mr. Hobhou......
-
Perfect v Lane
...to the observations on that case; Sugd. Vend. & Purch. (page 335 (13th edit.)).] Shelley v. Nash (3 Mad. 232); Salter v. Bradshaw (26 Beav. 161); Davis v. Duke, of Marlborough (2 Sw. 122, 163); Talbot v. Staniforth (1 Johns. & H. 484, 504). In the last case it was impossible to make a scien......
-
Jones v Ricketts
...58); Foster v. Roberts (29 Beav. 467); Perfect [132] v. Lane. (30 Beav. 197); Edivanh v. Burt (2 De G. M. & G. 55); Sailer v. Bradshaw (26 Beav. 161); Pain's case (8 Co. Eep. 34); Dyer (25 b., case 159), and Co. Lit. 29 b., were cited. the master of the bolls [Sir John Eomilly]. I am of opi......