Wiltshire v Rabbits
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 March 1844 |
| Date | 27 March 1844 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 60 E.R. 285
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 13 L. J. Ch. 284; 8 Jur. 769. See The Consolidated Investment, &c., Company v. Riley, 1859, 1 Giff. 375; In re Wyatt [1892], 1 Ch. 195; reported on appeal as Ward v. Duncombe [1893], A. C. 390; Taylor v. London and County Banking Company [1901], 2 Ch. 233.
Mortgage. Priority. Notice. Chattel Interest. Chose in Action.
[76] wiltshire v. rabbits. March 27, 1844. [S. C. 13 L. J. Ch. 284; 8 Jur. 769. See The Consolidated Investment, &c., Company v. Riley, 1859, 1 Giff. 375; In re Wyatt [1892], 1 Ch. 195; reported on appeal as Ward v. Duncombe [1893], A. C. 390; Taylor v. London and County Banking Company [1901], 2 Ch. 233.] Mortgage. Priority. Notice. Chattel Interest. Chose in Action. Testator bequeathed a leasehold estate to trustees, upon trust as therein mentioned r and, first, he charged the estate with the payment of an annuity to his daughter during all his interest in the estate. The daughter afterwards mortgaged her annuity, first bo A. and afterwards to B.; but B. gave the trustees notice of his mortgage before A. did. Held, that the annuity was not a chose in action but a chattel interest; and that B. had not gained any priority over A. 286 WILTSHIRE V, RABBITS 14 SIM. 77. George Rabbits, by his will, dated the 9th of August 1822, bequeathed to Cicero Rabbits and George Bethell certain farms (held by him for terms of years deter-minable with the lives of certain persons) upon trusts as therein mentioned: and, first, he charged the farms with the payment of annuities, namely, an annuity to his wife, since deceased, for her life, and another annuity of £45 to his daughter Frances, the wife of Thomas Tovey, yearly, and every year during all the testator's interest therein, for her separate use.(l) The testator died soon after the date of his will. By an indenture, dated the 30th of June 1836, Mr. and Mrs. Tovey assigned the annuity to Thomas Wiltshire, his executors, &c., by way of mortgage, with a power of sale for securing £500 and interest; but, some years prior thereto, they had made a similar assignment to Thomas Munday. The Plaintiffs, however (who were Wiltshire's executors), claimed priority over Munday, on the ground that Wiltshire gave the trustees of the will notice of his security long before Munday gave them notice of his security. Mr. Betheil and Mr. Rogers, for the Plaintiffs, said that Mrs. Tovey's annuity was òassignable, not at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daniel v Freeman
...DANIEL and FREEMAN. Dearle v. HallENR 3 Russ. 1. Jones v. Gibbons 9 Ves. 407. Wiltshire v. RabbitsENR 14 Sim. 76. Wilmot v. PikeENR 5 Hare, 14-20. Jones v. JonesENR 8 Sim. 633. Rooper v. HarrisonENR 2 K. & J. 86. Lee v. HowlettENR 2 K. & J. 531. Re Hughes' TrustsENR 2 H. & M. 89. Rochard v.......
-
George Rice, Lydia Rice and William Nail and Hannah, his Wife, v Michael Rice, Joseph Ede and Stephen Knight
...in a case like this, where the legal title to the deeds was in the party in whose hands they were allowed to remain. Wiltshire v. Rabbits (14 Sim. 76) was also referred to. Jan. 12, 1854. 'THE ViCE-CHANCELLOE [Sir E. T. Kindersley] took time to consider, and on the 12th January delivered th......
-
The Estate of David Vandeleur Roche, Owner; John Vanderkiste, Petitioner
...1 M. D. & De G. 333. Pryce BuryENR 2 Drew. 42. Burke's EstateUNK 9 L. R. Ir. 24. Wilmot v. PikeENR 5 Hare, 14. Wiltshire v. RabbitsENR 14 Sim. 76 Tyler v. LakeENR 4 Sim. 351. Johnson v. WebsterENR 4 De G. M. & G. 474. Lord Compton v. Oxenden 2 Ves. Jun. 263. Belaney v. BelaneyELRELR L. R. 2......
-
Lee v Howlett
...assign of B., who has not given such notice. It is decided that this doctrine does not apply to real estate; and in Wiltshire v. Babbits (14 Sim. 76) the late Vice-Chancellor of England considered that the doctrine 2K.&J.S36. MATHER V. TEASER 895 was not applicable to an assignment of an eq......