Ward v Audland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 79
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 14 L. J. Ch. 145; 9 Jur. 384. Cf. Ward v. Audland, 8 Sim. 571; C. P. Coop. 146; 41 E. R. 441; 16 Mee. & W. 862.
[201] ward v. audland. Jan. 16, 22, Feb. 27, 1845. [S. C. H L. J. Ch. 145; 9 Jur. 384. Cf. Ward v. A-udland, 8 Sim. 571 ; C. P. Coop. 146 ; 41 E. R. 441 ; 16 Mee. & W. 862.] A trustee under a voluntary settlement of chattels, policy of assurance and mortgage, filed a bill againat the representatives of the settlor for the recovery thereof. Held, that if the property was legally vested in the Plaintiff, he might recover it at law and apply it on the trusts; but if otherwise, then as the deed was voluntary, the Court could afford the Plaintiff no assistance in recovering it. In the case of an imperfect voluntary deed, neither the assignor nor his executor can be compelled to permit the assignee to use his name for the recovery of the debt. Held, that neither a voluntary assignment by deed of a mortgage debt, accompanied by a grant, not specifying the particular estate, but of all estates held in mortgage, and by a covenant for further assurance and without delivery of the mortgage deed or notice to the mortgagor, nor the voluntary assignment of a policy of assurance retained in the hands of the assignor, and without notice given to the grantor, though accompanied by a covenant for further assurance, can be considered as a complete and effectual assignment, to be acted upon and enforced by the assignee, without any further or other act to be done by the assignor. In the month of July 1826 William Whitelock was possessed of and entitled to certain household goods and effects, a sum of 546, 2s. 6d. (the payment of which to him, with interest, was secured by a mortgage in fee of certain customary lands), and a policy of assurance for the sum of 1000 payable after his death. He executed an indenture, dated the 27th day of the same [202] month, purporting to be made between himself of the first part, the Defendants William T. Ward arid Margaret his wife, and Mary Hervey, since deceased, of the second part, and the Plaintiff of the third part; and thereby, after noticing that he was mindful and desirous of making provision for Margaret Ward and Mary Hervey, his nieces and only near relations, and reciting as therein mentioned, it was witnessed, that he granted, bargained, and 80 WARD V. AUDLAND 8 BEAV. 203. assigned to the Plaintiff his household goods, and all sums of money then owing to him, with all policies of insurance and other securities for the same; and all other his personal estate, together with the mortgage deeds and writings relating to the premises ; to have, hold, receive, and take the same, unto the Plaintiff', upon the trusts following, namely, to the use of the grantor William Whitelock during his life, and after his death to the use of William Turner Ward and Margaret his wife, and Mary Hervey or their children, in manner therein mentioned. And it was further witnessed, that for better enabling the Plaintiff to get in any sum of money secured on mortgage, William Whitelock granted, assigned, and transferred to the Plaintiff, the lands to which William Whitelock was seised or entitled in mortgage for any term of years, in fee, or otherwise. And William Whitelock thereby appointed the Plaintiff' "Joseph Ward and his heirs," his attorney, to receive the debts, &c., and on non-payment, to bring actions and suits "in such manner and form, as he the said Joseph Ward or his heirs should think proper" and generally to do all acts, &c., as effectually as if he William Whitelock did the same, &c. William Whitelock thereby, for himself, his heirs, executors, arid administrators covenanted, promised, [203] and agreed to and with the Plaintiff Joseph Ward, his executors and administrators, that he the saicl WilliamWhitelock, his heirs, executors, and administrators, and all and every other person or persons having or claiming, or who should or might have or claim any estate, right, title, or interest at law or in equity of, in, to, or out of the said personal estate and effects, or any part or parcel thereof, intended to be thereby assigned and transferred, by, from, or under him, them, or any of them, should and would, from time to time, and at all times thereafter at the request of the said Joseph Ward, his executors or administrators, make, do, acknowledge, sign, pass, and execute, or cause and procure to be made, done, acknowledged, signed, passed, and executed, all and every such further and other lawful and reasonable acts, deeds, things, devices, transfers, assignments, releases, conveyances, and assurances in the law, whatsoever, for the further and better assigning and transferring all and singular the said personal estate and effects thereby assigned and transferred, or intended so to be, and every part thereof, with the appurtenances unto the said Joseph Ward, his executors administrators, and assigns upon the trusts aforesaid, be the same by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patch v Shore
...was valid. .Fletcher v. Fletcher (4 Hare, 67); Dillon v. Coppin (4 My. & Cr. 647); Jefferys v. Jefferys (Cr. & Ph. 138); Ward v. Audland (8 Beav. 201); Gregor v. Kemp (3 Swans, 404, 11.); Boughton v. Baughton (1 Atk. 625); Jones v. Martin (5 Ves. 266, n.); Garth-shore v. Chalie (10 Ves. 1);......
-
James Jeffries and Others, - Appellants; John Biddle Alexander and Others, and Attorney General, - Respondents
...settlement in favour of the testator's natural children was so treated in Fletcher v. Fletcher (4 Hare, 67); and Waugh v. Audland (8 Beav. 201) shows .how such an instrument as this is regarded in equity. Tuffnell v. Constable (7 Ad. and El. 798) proves that it would be established at law. ......
-
Kekewich v Manning
...In Colyear v. Lady Mulgram (2 Keen, 81), referred to on the other side, the òdecision was against the voluntary deed. Ward v. Audland (8 Beav. 201) is decisive against the Appellant: Jefferies v. Jeff'eries (Cr. & P. 138). [The Lord Justice Knight Bruce referred to Ellis v. Nimmo (Lloyd & G......
-
Derbishire v Home
...(3 Swanst. 80), Evans v. Bicknell (6 Ves. 174), Coltmatt v. Warren (cited in Cocker v. Quayle, 1 Euss. & My. 536), Ward v. Audland (8 Beav. 201), Jefferys v. Je/erys (Cr. & Ph. 138), James v. Bydder (4 Beav. 600). [705] Mr. Chandless and Mr. Hallett, for Sir W. P. de Bathe, cited Bowley^ v.......