Turner v Morgan. [HIGH COURT of CHANCERY]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 February 1803 |
| Date | 08 February 1803 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 32 E.R. 307
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Ames v. Comyns, 1867, 17 L. T. 163; Mayfair Property Company v. Johnston, [1894] 1 Ch. 511, 514; Hill v. Hickin, [1897] 2 Ch. 581.
turner v. morgan. Jan. llth, -28th, Feu. Mft, 1803. [See Ames v. Comyns, 1807, 17 L. T. 103 ; Mai/fair Property Company v. Johnston, [1894J 1 Ch. 511, 514 ; Hill v. Hickin, [1897J 2 Ch. 58Lj A Commission for Partition of a house decreed. The bill prayed Partition of a house at Portsmouth, and an account of the rent, under the following circumstances. The house was devised to three persons ; equally to be divided. The Plaintiff purchased two-thirds. The Defendant was tenant of the house at a rent of 2'2 a-year ; and refusing to raise the rent, the. PlaintiJl in 1799 brought an ejectment for two-thirds ; the other tenant in common, refusing to join. That ejectment was defeated ; the Defendant purchasing the remaining third ; upon which the bill was filed. [144] Mr. Romilly and Mr, Wear, for the Plaintiff, relied on the passage in Lord Clarendon v. Hornby (1 P. Will. 440), that if there is but one house, or mill, or advowson, the entire thing must be divided ; observing, that the Plaintiff offered by his bill either to buy or sell ; and that under the circumstances there must be a partition of the house. Mr. Mansfield and Mr. Thomson, for the Defendant. in Lord Clarendon v. Hornby the Lord Chancellor ought to have mentioned, how the partition should be made, it is observed in that case, that it would ruin the property ; and it was held, that, if the case admitted compensation, all, that could be insisted upon, was the fair value. The offer in the bill to buy or sell at the same price is specious : but the motive is equally bad. The Plaintiff knew, 308 NIELSON V. CORDELL 8 YES. JUN. 145. the Defendant, not long ago a bankrupt, could not buy at that price ; and he could not sell the premises, where he had carried on his trade many years. Mr. Romilly, in Reply. A Court of Equity in granting a Commission of Partition proceeds exactly upon the same grounds as the writ; and the only sort of house, that cannot be the subject of it, according to Lord Coke (Co. Lit. 31 b, 32 a) is a castle; being necessary for defence of the realm. In the case of Benson, an attorney at Cockermouth, there was an instance of a partition of a house by actually building up a wall in the middle. In Parker v. Gerard (Amb. 236. Agar v. Fairfax, 17 Ves. 533) it was held, that a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Irwin v Deasy
...CO v JOHNSTON 1894 1 CH 513 STORY COMMENTARIES ON EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE 1920 LYALL LAND LAW IN IRELAND 3ED 2010 424 TURNER v MORGAN 1803 8 VES JUN 143 HUDDERSFIELD v JACOMB 1874 WN 80 ROEBUCK v CHADEBET 1869 8 LR EQ 127 DRINKWATER v RATCLIFFE 1875 LR 20 EQ 53 GILBERT v SMITH 1878 8 CH D 548 ......