Slim v Croucher
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 1860 |
| Date | 10 March 1860 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 45 E.R. 462
BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD CAMPBELL AND THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. 2 Giff. 37; 29 L. J. Ch. 273; 2 L. T. 103; 6 Jur. (N. S.), 437; 8 W. R. 347. See Ramshire v. Boulton, 1869, L. R. 8 Eq. 300; Hill v. Lane, 1870, L. R. 11 Eq. 221. Distinguished, Peek v. Gurney, 1873, L. R. 6 H. L. 390. See Eaglesfield v. Marquis of Londonderry, 1876, 4 Ch. D. 706; Schroeder v. Mendl, 1877, 37 L. T. 454; Brownlie v. Campbell, 1880, 5 App. Cas. 935; Mathias v. Yetts, 1882, 46 L. T. 504. Held inconsistent with, and overruled by, Derry v. Peek, 1889, 14 App. Cas. 337, Low v. Bouverie [1891], 3 Ch. 82.
[518] slcm v. croucher. Before the Lord Chancellor Lord Campbell and the Lords Justices. Feb. 25, March 3, 10, I860. [S. C. 2 Giff. 37; 29 L. J. Ch. 273 ; 2 L. T. 103 ; 6 Jur. (N. S.), 437 ; 8 W. R. 347. See Ramshin v. Boultim, 1809, L. R. 8 Eq. 300; Hill v. Lane, 1870, I,. R. 11 Eq. 221. Distinguished, Peek v. G-wrneij, 1873, L. R. (i H. L. 390. See Eiujle.sJifM v. ATarrjuis of Londtmderry, 1876, 4 Ch. D. 706 ; Schroeder v. Me-ru.ll, 1877, 37 L. T. 454 ; Brownlie v. Uampbe.ll, 1880, 5 App. Cas. 935; Mathias v. Ydts, 1882, 4fi L. T. 504. Held inconsistent with, and overruled by, Dcrry v. Peek, 1889, 14 App. Cas. 337, Lmv v. Bouverie [1891], 3 Ch. 82.] On the occasion of a loan upon the security of a lease, which the borrower represented himself as entitled to have granted to him for 98 years and a half, the lender required a written intimation from the alleged lessor of his intention to grant the lease. The lessor being apprised of the requisition and of its object, signed the required intimation. The loan was made upon the faith of it, and afterwards the lessor granted a lease which was then mortgaged by the borrower to the lender. It turned out that the lessor had some time before demised the same premises for the same term to the borrower, by whom it had since been assigned for value. Held, that the Court had jurisdiction to direct repayment by the lessor to the lender of the sum which he had advanced with interest, and that it was a proper case for the exercise of such jurisdiction, although the lessor was not shewn to have been guilty of fraud, or of having clone more than forgotten the previous lease when he granted the second. This was an appeal from the decree made by Vice-Chancellor Stuart, directing the Appellant John Thomas Croucher, within one month after service of the decree, to pay to the Plaintiff James Slim, the sum of 300, and interest thereon at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum from the 2d of May 1857 to the day of payment and to pay the Plaintiff his costs of suit when taxed. In December 1856 a builder named Thomas Hudson, having finished building four houses on a piece of land in Croucher Place, Bromley, in Middlesex, applied to Messrs. 1DEG. F. SJ.S19, SUM V. CHOUCHER 463 Norton & Co., the Plaintiffs solicitors, and requested to know if any client of theirs would lend Mr. Hudson money on a mortgage of the houses, informing them at the same time that Mr. John Thomas Croucher, to whom the land belonged on which the houses were built, had agreed to grant Mr. Hudson a lease of it for 98 years and a half, from Christmas 1853, at a peppercorn rent. Messrs. Norton & Co. having read the agreement for a lease which was shewn to them by Mr. Hudson, required an assurance from Mr. Croucher that he would grant a lease according to the agreement. [519] Under these circumstances Mr. Hudson applied to Mr. Croucher and informed him of the agreement, and Mr. Croucher thereupon wrote and sent by Mr. Hudson the following letter to Mr. Norton :- "Post Office, Shadwell, December 7, 185fi.-Sir,-I am quite agreeable to grant a peppercorn lease of ground on which four houses are erected, and situate at Bromley to Mr. Hudson.-I am, Sir, yours, &c., &c., J. T. crouchek. " Norton, Esq." The Plaintiff then satisfied himself of the value of the proposed security, and Messrs. Norton & Co. proceeded to prepare a lease in the terms agreed upon. Oa the 30th of January 1857 Messrs. Norton & Co. wrote to J. T. Croucher and to Hudson, informing them that the draft of the lease was prepared, and requesting them to call and examine it. Croucher and Hudson accordingly called and examined the draft lease at the office of Messrs. Norton & Co., and signed at the foot thereof a memorandum of approval, as follows :- "We have approved and do approve of this draft lease dated the 14th January 1857. " J. T. croucher. " thomas hudson." A lease was afterwards engrossed from this draft, and with a counterpart was duly executed by both Croucher and Hudson at the office of Messrs. Norton & Co., who retained the lease on behalf of the Plaintiff as a security, and handed over the counterpart to Mr. Croucher. Between the 19th of January 1857 and the 2clof May 1857 the Plaintiff advanced to Mr, Hudson [520] various sums of money, amounting in the whole to ,300, on the faith of the security; and on the 2d of May 1857 Mr. Hudson delivered to the Plaintiff a deed purporting to be a mortgage by way of underlease of the houses comprised in the said lease to secure 300 and interest. In August 1857 Mr. Hudson, having become embarrassed, went abroad, where he had ever since remained. Shortly afterwards, the Plaintiff discovered that in August 1850 Mr. Croucher had granted to Hudson a lease for ninety-nine years, or some long term of years, which lease included all the premises comprised in the Plaintiff's security, and was still subsisting. This lease had been duly registered at the Middlesex Registry Office, and afterwards assigned by Mr. Hudson for value to a stranger, so that at the date of the Plaintiff's mortgage Mr. Croucher had no right to grant to Hudson the lease which he had mortgaged to the Plaintiff, and, in fact, the latter lease was wholly worthless. The bill was filed against Croucher and Hudson, and stated to the above effect and that under the circumstances aforesaid the Plaintiff had been induced to lend the 300 by fraud, misrepresentation and concealment on the part of both the Defendants j and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Canson Enterprises Ltd. v. Boughton & Co., [1991] 3 SCR 534
...v. O'Malley, [1974] S.C.R. 592; Burrowes v. Lock (1805), 10 Ves. Jun. 470, 32 E.R. 927; Slim v. Croucher (1860), 1 De G. F. & J. 518, 45 E.R. 462; Culling v. Sansai Securities Ltd. (1974), 45 D.L.R. (3d) 456; Burke v. Cory (1959), 19 D.L.R. (2d) 252; Howard v. Cunliffe (1973), 36 D.L.R.......
- Mutual Life and Citizens' Assurance Company Ltd v Evatt
-
Archbold v Lord Howth
...H. L. C. 750 Hern v. NicollsENR 6 C. B. 319. Crockford v. WinterENR 6 C. B. N. S. 894. Wilson v. Fuller Coop. Ch. 308. Kennedy v. LeeUNK 1 D. F. & J. 518. Routledge v. GrantENR 9 H. L. C. 712. Boydell v. DrummondENR 1 Bro. P. C. 543. Ridgway v. WhartonENR 1 Dow, 272. Udell v. Atherton 14 C.......
-
Zibara v Ultra Management (Sports) Pty Ltd
...was very much alive when Barnes v Addy was determined. It may readily be seen, by reference to Slim v Croucher (1860) 1 De G F & J 518; 45 ER 462 and Ramshire v Bolton (1869) 8 LR Eq 294, in the illuminating account of Nocton v Lord Ashburton by Justice Edelman in C Mitchell and P Mitchell ......