Taylor v Baker, Strong, Metcalfe, and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 January 1818 |
| Date | 17 January 1818 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 146 E.R. 616
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
Followed, Harvey v. Tebbutt, 1820, 1 Jac. & W. 199, 202.
[306] taylor v. baker, strong, metoalfe, and another. Saturday, 17th January 1818.-If a purchaser have been informed, before payment of the purchase-money, that there is any previous incumbrarice against the vendor, w;hich woulcj be a lien on the land, it is such sufficient notice as to put him on enquiry \ and if the lien turn out to be not of a precisely similar nature,-(as if h$ have beep told that A. had a judgment* who, in fact, had a mortgage)-it is yet, to a certain extent, legal notice, arid the Court will set aside conveyances made after such notice in prejudice of the prior incumbrancer.-Where a salo or mortgage is a fraud on a prior incumbrancer, the Court will give costs against the vendee or mortgagee, on setting aside the deeds. [Followed, Harvey v. Tebliutt, 1820, 1 Jac. & W. l'J9, 202.] The plaintiff filed this bill in the character of a prior incumbrancer, with notice, praying, to be let in to redeem a previous mortgage subsequently assigned to the defendant Baker ; and that a posterior fraudulent sale to him might be set aside; arid for an Injunction of a pending action of ejectment. ; * He was also outlawed. 5PKICE, 307. TAVLOH V. BAKKU 617 The bill stated, that the plaintiff had advanced the defendant Strong 3001. on the security of certain freehold and copyhold property, at that time subject to a previous mortgage for 2501. by n term of one thousand years in the freehold, and a defeasible surrender of the copyhold,-that in consideration thereof Strong executed to the plaintiff a lease and release (30th and 31st October 1814) in fee of the freehold, and. covenanted to surrender the copyhold, (the plaintiff being then and afterwards in possession, as lessee to Strong,) and that the deeds were afterwards enrolled in tho manor court. Soon after Baker (who was a relation of Strong) applied to him for a security on the premises so mortgaged, for certain money, which Baker claimed to be owing from Strong to him ; and Strong, after some delay, at length (having first mentioned the mortgage to plaintiff, as a reason why he could not do so,) agreed to sell to [307] Baker the property for a nominal consideration of 5001. : with a condition, that he might be at liberty to re-purchase, on payment of thafc sum, with costs and interest; arid, on 7th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Penny v Watts
...that the Plaintiff had an equitable title by contract to have the devised estates conveyed to him. There is a case of Taylor v. Baker (5 Price, 306), which certainly embraces the whole of this proposition. In that case A. made an equitable mortgage to B., arid, on giving a second security t......
-
Frazer v Jones
...v. Pike (5 Hare, 14), Hiern v. Mill (13 Ves. 114), Jones v. Smith (1 Hare, 43), Whitbread v. Jordan (1 Y. & Coll. 303), Taylor v. Baker (5 Price, 306), Maundrett v. Maundrett (10 Ves. 270). Mr. Humphrey, for the other Defendants. Nov. 7. the vice-chancellor [Sir James Wigram]. There appears......
-
Sir Moses Montefiore-Appellant; Peter Browne, - Respondent
...it, although the settlement, of the existence of which he was informed, did contain a charge on the husband's property. Taylor v. Baker (5 Price, 306) is not applicable here, for there the purchaser had full notice of the prior incumbrance: he knew nothing of it in this case. The doctrine o......
-
Wilson v Hart
...with notice of the contents of the settlement. So, again, a case more nearly bearing [557] on the case before me is Taylor v. Baker (5 Price, 306), to which Vice-Chancellor Wigram refers. A person at the time of making a purchase had actual notice that one Strong had a judgment or warrant o......