Sellick v Trevor and Davies
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 June 1843 |
| Date | 10 June 1843 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 995
EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS.
S. C. 12 L. J. Ex. 401.
skluck u. tkevor and davtes. Exch. of Pleas. June 10, 1843.-One W. T. being possessed of certain copyhold premises, mortgaged the same to P., and by the indenture of mortgage covenanted to surrender them into the hands of the Dean and Chapter of W., the lords of the manor, to the use of the defendant, who was: to be a trustee to sell the premises, in the event of default being made in payment of the mortgage money. W. T. made no surrender in pursuance of the above indenture, but died after devising all his real property to certain trustees : subsequently to the death of \V. T., the lords of the manor, at the nomination of the defendant, granted the property in question to certain persons upon the said trusts, &c. mentioned in the indenture of mortgage. W. T., in his lifetime, surrendered other property to the lords of the manor, by way of mortgage to C., in consideration of a loan of 100, and by an indenture of even date, covenanted, amongst other things, to repay the money borrowed, and gave the mortgagee a power of sale, in case of default in payment of the money. That indenture was stamped with an acl valorem stamp of 11. 10s. The defendant sold the whole of the above property to the plaintiff under the following conditions of sale :-that he should deduce a good title to the premises for the lives by which they were held under the Dean and Chapter of VV. ; but that no earlier or other title should lie deduced, or any deed or document produced anterior to the last copy of court roll, by which the premises were grunted :- Held, first, that the defendant shewed no title in himself, as no surrender of the premises had been made to his use by W. T., and that the vendee was not precluded by the conditions of sale from making this objection to the title, as it appeared on the face of the abstract delivered. Secondly, that the stamp of 30s. was sufficient. [S. C. 12 L. J. Ex. 401.] Assumpait tor money paid by the plaintiff for the defendants, and for money had and received by the defendants to the use of the plaintiff. Plea, non assumpsit. At the trial before Atcherley, Serjt., at the last Spring Assizes for the county of Somerset, it appeared that the action was brought to recover back a deposit paid on a sale of certain copyhold property, on the ground that a good title had not been made out. It appeared, that one William Tripp, being possessed of certain copyhold property held by him under the Dean and Chapter of Winchester, as lords of the 9J96 SELLICK V. TREVOR 11M. &W. 723. manor of Bleadou and Pricldie, by indenture, dated the 8th of May, 1S21, and made between himself of the first part, Thomas Powell of the second part, and the defendant Trevoc of the third part, mortgaged the same to Powell, and covenanted to surren-[723]-der it into the hands of the lords of the manor, to the use of the defendant Tjrevor, with power to Trevor to sell the same in the event of default being made by Tripp in payment of the principal money to Powell, the mortgagee. Tripp died in October, 1841, without having surrendered tho premises to the lords of the manor ; and by his will, dated in September, 1841, devised the premises and all his real estate to J. Cortielrl and G. Edwards, in trust to sell or mortgage the same. By copy of court roll, of the 26th of May, 1842, the Dean and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fennelly and Others v Anderson
...497. Anderson v. HigginsENR 1 Jo. & Lat. 718. Leathem v. Allen Supra, 683. Purvis v. RayerENR 9 Price, 488, 525. Sellick v. TrevorENR 11 M. & W. 722, 729. 706 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1851: Chancery. FENNELLY and others v. ANDERSON. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.---By indenture of the 20th of December 1813......
-
Ashworth and Another v Mounsey
...& W. 520), Fhqht v. Booth (I Bing. N. C. 370), Shepherd v Keatley (1 C. M & E. 117), Spratt v Jeffay (10 B. & C. 249), Selhck v. Trevor (11 M. & W. 722) If the language of the condition is ambiguous, the purchaser may put his own construction upon it: Dykes v Blake (4 Bing. N". C 80 ASHWORT......
-
Buchanan v Poppleton
...ears, that the land-tax has been redeemed. Byles, Serjt., in reply, referred to Shepherd v. Keatley, 1 C. M. & R. 117, Sellick v. Trevor, 11 M. & W. 722, 728, and JeaJces v. White, 6 Exch. 873. : Cur. adv. vult. willes, J., now delivered the judgment of the court:-These are cross-actions be......
-
Musgrave v M'Cullagh
...194. Larkin v. Lord RosseUNK 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 70. Darlington v. HamiltonENR 1 Kay, 550. Barton v. Downes F. & K. 505. Sellick v. TrevorENR 11 M. & W. 722. Warren v. RichardsonENR 1 Younge, 1. Grosvenor v. Greene 28 L. J., Ch., 173. 496 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1864. Chancery. MUSGRAVE v. M'CULLAGH.......