Wason v Wareing
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 January 1852 |
| Date | 26 January 1852 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 494
ROLLS COURT
[151] wason v. wareing.(1) Jan. 23, 26, 1852. A party relying on his ignorance of facts must shew, not only that he had not the information, but that he could not, with due diligence, obtain it. The Plaintiff, a surety, sought to set aside a deed executed in 1848, on the ground that he had been released by a transaction between the principals in 1842, of which he was ignorant in 1848. It appeared that he had made inquiries in 1845, and was referred to persons who could give him the information, but neglected to do so until the end of 1849, when he obtained it. Held, that having in 1845 the means of acquiring the knowledge, he must be deemed to have had it in 1848, and his bill was dismissed. In 1838 Bird mortgaged some houses to Rowe, to secure the repayment of £1300. In this transaction the Plaintiff Wasou, an attorney, was surety for Bird. In 1842 Bird arid Eowe joined in the sale of one of the houses for £435, and they both executed the conveyance to the purchaser. Of the £435, £35 only was paid to Howe, and the remainder was paid to Bird, the mortgagor, leaving a sum of £400 still due on the mortgage. This sum and interest remaining unpaid, various applications were, in 1845, made to Wason for payment; and an action was commenced against him in 1847, which ended injWason executing a deed, dated July 1848, by which he covenanted to pay the Defendants, the representatives of Rowe (who died in December 1847) £400 and interest. Another action was brought on the covenant in October 1849, to which he pleaded fraud and never indebted ; and on the 23d of February 1850 he filed this bill, insisting that, by the transaction of 1842, he had been released from his suretyship, and that he had [152] executed the deed of 1848 in ignorance that the mortgagee had allowed the mortgagor to retain the £400, and he sought to get rid of his liability as surety, and also his liability under the deed of 1848, and prayed for an injunction. The Plaintiff in the action recovered judgment in January 1850. The Defendant insisted that the Plaintiff had notice of the transaction, or must be deemed to have notice of it. The answer of Christian, the representative of Rowe, which was read, stated that, (1) dates. 1838. Mortgage. 1848. Deed of covenant. 1842. Sale of house. 1849. Oct. Action. 1845. Reference for information. 1850. Feb. Bill filed. UBEAV.1M. WASON V. WAREING 495 in 1845, various applications...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Shore Ventures Ltd v Anstead Holdings, Inc. and Others
...been willing to give the security that they did.” 116 I should mention two of the other cases on which Mr Tregear relied. The first, Wason v Wareing (1852) 15 Beav 151, involved an attempt by a surety to avoid a deed he had executed in 1848. Romilly MR dismissed the application on the basis......
-
Kellett v Kellett
...13 Sim. 202. Gyles v. GylesUNK 9 Ir. Ch. 135. Dormer v. FortescueENR 3 Atk. 130. Schroder v. SchroderENR Kay, 591. Wason v. WareingENR 15 Beav. 151. Barrington v. O'Brien 1 B. & Beat. 180. Peyton v. M'Dermott 1 Dr. & Walsh, 230. Sealy v. Stawell I. R. 3 Eq. 142. Dickenson v. TeasdaleENR 31 ......
-
Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Daly
...then as a general rule he will not be able to complain that the creditor did not tell them what they were: Wason v. Wearing 918520 15 Beav. 151.” 140 It is uncontroversial to say that MDS agreed to provide the guarantee out of a desire to support his son and daughter-in-law and, in so doing......
-
Keogh v M'Grath
...Carpenter v. BullenENR 8 M. & W. 215. Saunders v. Lord Annesly 2 Sch. & L. 73. Persse v. PersseENR 7 Cl. & Fin. 279. Wason v. WaringENR 15 Beav. 151. Underwood v. Lord Courtown 2 Sch. & Lef. 41. Barrow v. BarrowENR 4 K. & J. 409. Savage v. FosterENR 9 Mod. 35. Fowler v. FowlerENRUNK 33 Beav......