Stileman and his Wife, Executrix of H. Soane, against John and William Ashdown
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 June 1743 |
| Date | 14 June 1743 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 7
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Mackay v. Douglas, 1872, L. R. 14 Eq. 120.
Case 5.-stileman and his Wife, Executrix of H. soane, against john and william ashdown. 14th June 1743. [See Mackay v. Douglas, 1872, L. R. 14 Eq. 120.] Judgment creditor shall have satisfaction against the heir of the obligor, for only a moiety of the land, the same as at law. But if the heir comes to redeem a mortgage, he must pay the whole mortgage-money, and the judgment too.-[Lib. Reg. 1742, B. fo. 441. S. C. Coxe MSS. Lib. T. 235; Hill, MSS. 5 vol. 80. On re-hearing, ib. 508; 2 Atk. 477, 608.] John Ashdown deceased, late father of the defendants, purchased an estate in land, which, by lease and release, of 10th and llth September 1700, was conveyed to himself and the defendant John Ashdown, and their heirs. He afterwards purchased another estate in land, which, by lease [14] and release of the 19th and 20th April, 1708, was conveyed to him and his son William, and their heirs. He was also entitled to the equity of redemption of another estate, at Heaver in the county of Kent, which was mortgaged to the defendant John Ashdown, for 150. In Hilary Term,, 7 Geo. 1st, a judgment was obtained against him by H. Soane for 295. He afterwards died, and the defendants having entered upon the several estates conveyed to them respectively, bill was brought by the plaintiff to be satisfied the judgment-debt out of the lands in mortgage, and the other estates, which were purchased and conveyed as 8 SffitLEMAN V. ASHDOWN AMB. 15. foresaid; the defendants insisted upon the benefit of the conveyances of 1700 and 1708, as surviving joint-purchasers, they being intended as a provision or advancement for, them respectively, but admitted that the purchase-money for those estates was paid by the father. The cause coming on to be heard on the 18th December 1742 (Lib. Reg. B. 1742, fo. 108), it was declared that the plaintiff was entitled to have the equity of redemption of the estate at Heaver, and one moiety of the lands comprised in the purchase-deeds of 1700 and 1708, subjected in equity to the satisfaction of the principal, interest,, and costs due on the judgment recovered by Henry Soane against the said John Ash-down the father, and directed the mortgage to be redeemed by the plaintiffs in the usual way; and in case of such redemption, ordered, that the mortgage premises, and also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen against The Local Board of Health of the Borough of Godmanchester
...[Willes J. referred to stat. 3 Jac. 1, c, 14, and Herne's Reading upon the Statute of Sewers, 23 H. 8, c. 5 (a).] In [938] Goulton v. Ambler (13 M. & W. 403) the Eau Brink Cut, for improving the drainage of lands adjoining the river Ouse, was held not to be a " public or parish drain " with......
-
Howlin v Sheppard
...(10) ; Kilworth v. Mounteashell (11) ; Re Whyte (12). As to the execution of the power to charge the £1600, they cited Pettinger v. Ambler (13) ; Stillman v. Weedon (14) ; Thomas v. Jones (15). Mr. Ball, Q.C., Mr. Walsh, Q.C., and Mr. E. Gibson, for the Defendants. The character and histor......
-
Burroughs v Elton
...proceed at law, he had directed an inquiry into the usage of the Masters. [33] Mr. Bell mentioned Stileman v. Ashdo-wn (2 Atk. 477, 008 ; Amb. 13). Feb. 'J8//i. The Lord Chancellor [Eldon |. [ have looked at the case of Stileman v. Ashdoivn ; and Mr. Brown represents Lord Hardwicke to have ......
-
Sturt v Mellish
...Sturt and Mellish See Wilson v. Lord Bury, 1880, 5 Q. B. D. 531. [608] Case 340.-stilbman versus ashdown, June 18, 1743. A Rehearing. S. G. Amb. 13; ante, 477.-Lord Hardwicke, being of the same opinion he was at the former hearing, affirmed the decree he made on the 8th Dec. 1742. The singl......