Thomas Tiffin, Brother and Heir of Robert Tiffin, Plaintiff; Maria Tiffin, Executrix of Robert Tiffin, Crick, and Groome, Defendants
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 1680 |
| Date | 11 February 1680 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 23 E.R. 260
LORD CHANCELLOR NOTTINGHAM.
CASES ARGUED and ADJUDGED in the HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY, originally Published by Order of the Court, from the Manuscripts of THOMAS VER-NON, ESQ., 1680-1687. Third Edition, 1828. Vol. I. de term. S. hillarii, 1680, in curia cancellari*;. Case 1.-thomas tiffin, Brother and Heir of Robert Tiffin, Plaintiff; maria tiffin, Executrix of Robert Tiffin, Crick, and Groome, Defendants. Lord Chancellor Nottingham. 11 Feb. 1680. 2 Ch. Ca. 49, 55; [1] Eq. Ca. Ab. 241, pi. 1; 274, pi. 8. A man purchases land and takes the fee in his own name, and an assignment of a term in a trustee's name ; the term shall attend the inheritance, though not said in the assignment it should do so. The custom of London shall not prevent the attendance of a term on the inheritance. Vide post, Dowse v. Percival, Case 92. Robert Tiffin purchased the lands in question, and took the fee in his own name, and an assignment of the mortgage term for years in the names of the defendants, Crick and Groome, in trust; and made his wife, the defendant Maria, executrix. The plaintiff, as heir, brought this bill for an assignment of the term; for that it was to attend the inheritance. The defendant, the executrix, insisted, there was no mention in the assignment that the term was to attend the inheritance, and that it was a term in gross, and ought to be enjoyed as a chattel; and was assets. [2] Lord Chancellor. A term in the owner is assets at law, but a term in trust is not to be made assets in equity; and it would be dangerous to purchasers to make it so : and cited the case of Greene and Lambert, where it was adjudged the custom of London should not prevent the attendance of a lease on the inheritance : and decreed thp trustees to assign the term to attend the inheritance.(l) (1) Reg. Lib. 1680, B. 201. Every term standing out is at law a term in gross, but in equity it may be made to attend the inheritance, either by express declaration or implication of law. Scott v. Fenhoulet, 1 Br. Ch. Rep. 69. And no difference whether the term or the inheritance be first in the ancestor. Langton's case, 2 Cha. Ca. 156. Dowse v. Percival, post, p. 104. Nor whether the legal estate is in cestui que trust or trustee, where there is a covenant to convey the legal estate, for there equity considers it as actually...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v Duke of Marlborough
...for their expectancy, are entitled, for mere inadequacy of price, to have the contract rescinded, upon terms of redemption; Knott v. Hill, 1 Vern. 1G7; 2 Fern. 27 ; 2 Ca. in Cha. 120 ; 2 Cox, 80. Barney v. Beak, 2 Ca. in Cha. 136. Batty v. Lloyd, 1 Vern. 141. Wiseman v. Beake, 2 Vern. 121; ......
-
Customs of London and York
...104. The Custom of London shall not prevent the Attendance of a Term on the Inheritance, per Nottingham, Ld. Chan., in Tiffin v. Tiffin, [1] Vern. 1. * 4. On a Marriage of £.'s Daughter with A. a Freeman of London, B. the Father, settles a Term for Years in Trust, that A. the Husband, shou......
-
Heir and Ancestor
...of a mortgage Term in the Name of a Trustee, yet the Term shall attend the Inheritance, and go to the Heir. Hil. 1680, Tiffin and Tiffin, 1 Vern. 1. 9. So if a Purchaser takes the Mortgage Term in his own Name, and the Inheritance in the Name of a Trustee, yet it shall go to the Heir, thoug......
-
Gunter v Gunter
...Selwyn and Mr. Westlake, in support of the demurrer, cited Pitt v. Pitt (22 Beav. 294); Hood v. Phillips (3 Beav. 513); Tiffin v. Tiffin (1 Vern. 1); Best v. Stampford (2 Vern. 520) ; Swabey v. Swabey (15 Sim. 106) ; Whitchurch v. WTiitchurch (2 P. Wms. 236); Drnvse v. Perdval (1 Vern. 104)......