The Liverpool Borough Bank v Turner
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 1860 |
| Date | 12 December 1860 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 45 E.R. 715
BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD CAMPBELL.
S. C. 1 J. & H. 159; 30 L. J. Ch. 379; 7 Jur. (N. S.), 150; 3 L. T. 494; 9 W. R. 292. See In re The General Provident Assurance Company, Ltd., 1869, 38 L. J. Ch. 322; Keith v. Burrows, 1876, 1 C. P. D. 731; Caldow v. Pixell, 1877, 2 C. P. D. 566; Howard v. Boddington, 1877, 2 P. D. 211; Hughes v. Sutherland, 1881, 7 Q. B. D. 162; Batthyany v. Bouch, 1881, 50 L. J. Q. B. 424; Chasteauneuf v. Capeyron, 1882, 7 App. Cas. 131; In re Great Eastern Steamship Company, 1885, 53 L. T. 595; Black v. Williams [1895], 1 Ch. 417.
[502] the liverpool borough bank v. turner. Before the Lord Chancellor Lord Campbell. Dec. 7, 8, 12, 1860. [S. C. 1 J. & H. 159 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 379 ; 7 Jur. (N. S.), 150 ; 3 L. T. 494 ; 9 W. R. 292. See In re The General Provident Assurance Company, Ltd., 1869, 38 L. J. Ch. 322 ; Keith v. Burrows, 1876, 1 C. P. D. 731 ; Caldow v. Pimll, 1877, 2 C. P. D. 566 ; Howard v. Boddingtm, 1877, 2 P. D. 211 ; Hughes v. Sutherland, 1881, 7 Q. B. D. 162; Batthj/any v. Smith, 1881, 50 L. J. Q. B. 424; Chasteauneuf v. Capei/ron, 1882, 7 App. Gas. 131 ; In re Great Eastern Steamship Company, 1885, 53 L. T. 595 ; Black v. JPilliams [1895], 1 Ch. 417.] Although the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, contains no provision negativing the 716 THE LIVERPOOL BOROUGH BANK V. TURNER 2 DB 0. F, * J. BOJ. validity of a mortgage made otherwise than according to the terms of the Act, the whole scope of the Act is to that effect, and an equitable mortgage is still invalid. This was an appeal from the decision of Vice-Chancellor Wood dismissing the Plaintiffs' bill so far as it sought relief in respect of an alleged equitable mortgage of certain shares in. a ship called the " Italian." Towards the close of the year 1855, the ship " Italian " was purchased by a firm of M'Larty & Co., consisting of Donald M'Larty, jun., John M'Kean and Robert Lamont, hut was registered in the joint names of Robert Lamont and John M'Kean, and two other persons, named John M'Ausland and Archibald Denny. The name of John M'Ausland was so put upon the register in accordance with the following memorandum of agreement:- " Memorandum of agreement between Tullock and Denny and John M'Ausland, attorney for Edward Blackmore, all of Dumbarton, of the first part, and Messrs. M'Larty & Co., of Liverpool, of the second part. The thirty-four sixty-fourths of the s.s. " Italian," built by Archibald Denny, belonging to the said first parties, is hereby disposed of to the said second parties for the sum of 12,750, payable before the ship leaves Bowling, as follows :-8500 cash, 4250 by bill at six months' date from 1st November instant. The said John M'Ausland to go on the register as joint-owner to secure payment of the said bill, and upon payment thereof to join with other owners on register in conveying the said vessel, or any part...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pfizer Inc v Registrar of Patents
... ... `s counsel on the following statement of Lord Campbell CJ in Liverpool Borough Bank v Turner [1861] 45 ER 715: No universal rule can be laid ... ...
-
R v Board of Visitors of Dartmoor Prison, ex parte Smith
...If it was mandatory, failure to comply would result in "implied nullification for disobedience": see per Lord Campbell in Liverpool Borough Bank v Turner 29 L.J. (Ch 827); 30 L.J. (Ch 379); de G.F.F. 502. He directed himself by reference to the principles stated by Lord Penzance in Howard v......
-
R v Clarke (Ronald Augustus) and McDaid
...does not sign the indictment". Prosecuting counsel went on to cite Liverpool Borough Bank v Turner (1860) 2 De GF&J, 502 at pp 507-508, 45 ER 715, 718, where the court was enjoined by Lord Campbell LC to look at the importance of the provisions in question and to look at the real intention ......
- Tisand (Pty) Ltd v the Owners of the Ship Mv Cape Moreton (Ex Freya)