« AnteriorContinuar »
EQUITY OF REDEMPTION.
See FORECLOSURE SUIT,
EQUITY TO A SETTLEMENT. Two Thirds of Fund allowed Wife.] Where there had been no settlement, and
the wife of a bankrupt was left in reduced circumstances, with eleven children, two thirds of a fund in court were directed to be settled on them. Pugh, ex parte, 350.
Of Intention to bind Personal Property by a Mortgage.] A, B, and C, became
entitled to certain lands subject to a mortgage, in unequal shares. By a deed of transfer, reciting that the mortgagee had called in and required payment of the mortgage debt from A, B, and C, according to their respective proportions thereof, and that they, being unable to comply with such request, had applied to Y and Z to advance the money, which they had consented to do upon having the repayment thereof with interest secured in manner thereinafter mentioned, the mortgage security was transferred to Y and Z, subject to a new proviso for redemption upon payment, on a newly appointed day, of the principal sum, with interest in the meantime by A, B, and C, in proportion to their respective shares in the estate; and in the deed was contained a covenant by A, B, and C, for payment of their respective proportions of their mortgage debt and interest, for which they also gave a bond of even date
with the mortgage :Held, that the transaction was simply a transfer of the mortgage, and was not sufficient
evidence of an intention by A, B, and C, to make their personal estate liable for their shares of the debt after their respective deaths. Hedges v. Hedges, 331.
See AFFIDAVIT. PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS. DEED. PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS. TITHES. WITNESS. When Parol Evidence is Admissible.]
See PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.
Right to Consignments.] In a case where A had agreed to remit certain consignments
to B, and B had agreed to account with A for the proceeds of such consignments:Held, that it was not competent at any time afterwards for B to assert a paramount
title to the proceeds of such consignments. Zulueta v. Vinent, 145.
1. Who bound by] A party to a suit, in which a decree of foreclosure has been made,
in the absence of another party interested in the estate, whose interest was not disclosed on the pleadings, is, notwithstanding the imperfection of the suit, bound by
the decree of foreclosure. Bromitt v. Moor, 241. 2. Bill for Redemption.) A party to a foreclosure suit, whose interest is thereby fore
closed, and who afterwards becomes entitled to an interest in the same estate, by devise or otherwise, from another person who was not a party to the foreclosure, may bring his bill of redemption. Ib.
3. Relief.] Relief will not be given in such a case, on a claim for redemption, stating
only that the plaintiff is entitled to the equity of redemption under certain instruments, but not stating any of the proceedings in the suit for foreclosure, or the grounds on which the plaintiff seeks to set it aside. 16.
See CONFLICT OF LAWS.
1. An insurance company having bad the chance of a contract of life insurance turning
out in their favor, cannot afterwards be permitted, on the ground of the inconsist
ency of the contract with their rules, to escape from it. Collett v. Morrison, 171. 2. Circumstances in which insurance companies preparing and issuing policies not in
conformity with the agreement upon which the insurance was accepted, may be liable
in equity on the ground of fraud. Ib. See ATTORNEY AND SOLICITOR. DEED. INSURANCE. MARRIAGE SETTLE
See RAILWAYS. To Stay Proceedings at Law.]
See PRINCIPAL AND SURETY. To Restrain Proceedings at Law.]
See Zulueta v. Vinent, 146.
INSANITY. Good Cause for Dissolution of Partnership.]
1. Powers of a Court of Equity.) If upon a proposal and agreement for a life insurance, a policy be drawn up by the insurance office in a form which differs from the terms of the agreement, and varies the rights of the parties assured, equity will interfere and deal with the case on the footing of the agreement, and not on that of the
policy. Collett v. Morrison, 171. 2. Stat. 14 Geo. 3, c. 48.] The stat. 14 Geo. 3, c. 48, does not prohibit a policy of life
insurance from being granted to one person in trust for another, where the names of both persons appear upon the face of the instrument; nor does the effecting of such
an insurance in any way contravene the policy of the statute. Ib. 3. Inconsistency of Contract.] An insurance company having had the chance of a con
tract of life insurance turning out in their favor, cannot afterwards be permitted, on the ground of the inconsistency of the contract with their rules, to escape from it.
16. 4. Fraud.) Circumstances in which insurance companies preparing and issuing policies
not in conformity with the agreement upon which the insurance was accepted, may be liable in equity on the ground of fraud. 16.
1. From what time it runs. On a bill to enforce a charge acquired by a judgment cre
ditor on the estate of the debtor, a receiver was appointed, and, at the hearing, a reference as to incumbrances on the estate was directed. A state of facts and claim carried in before the Master under such inquiry by an incumbrancer, not a party to the suit, was held to take the charge as to the interest out of the statute of limitations (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, s. 42); and the incumbrancer was held to be entitled to arrears of interest for six years antecedent to the time of such claim. Greenway v. Bromfield, 189. On Bonds.] By a deed of composition with creditors, it was provided that the creditors should be paid out of the property ratably, and without preference, and that any creditor holding a mortgage security might be paid the amount of his debt and
interest :Held, that this deed did not render the simple contract debts specialty, and that bond
creditors were not entitled to more than the penalty of the bond. Clowes v. Waters,
326. 3. When due to Tenant for Life.] Lands held under the see of W. by a lease for lives,
renewable on payment of a fine to the bishop, were taken by a railway :Held, that the bishop, for the time being, was not entitled to the dividends of the in
vestment of the compensation money as they accrued due, but that such dividends should be accumulated, with liberty to apply on the dropping of any life. Bishop of Winchester, ex parte, 342.
See GROVE v. BASTARD, 76.
See LIMITATIONS. RAILWAYS.
INTERPLEADER SUIT. Practice.] In an interpleader suit, to determine the right of conflicting claimants to
portions of an aggregate fund, the court directed inquiries as to the claims of the several defendants, and reserved further directions and costs. One defendant obtained a separate report, finding his title to a portion of the fund ; and, being unable to set down the cause on further directions, in consequence of the claimants of the other portions of the fund not having proceeded to establish their title, presented his petition for payment of the sum found due to him ; but the court refused to order such payment upon petition, or until the cause was heard on further directions, and the costs of the suit could be disposed of. Bruce v. Elwin, 222.
Rights of Survivors.] One of four joint tenants of a sum of 2,000L., subject to a life
estate in M. B., married J. L. Afterwards J. L. became bankrupt; then the wife
died; then M. B. died :Held, that the surviving joint tenants were entitled, in preference to the assignees in
bankruptcy of J. L. Barton's Trust, in re, 323.
1. Specific Performance.] Equity will not decree the specific performance of a cove
nant by the mesne landlord with his lessee for the renewal of the lease, after the lessee has wilfully neglected or refused to renew: and the non-payment, after demand, of the fine which the mesne landlord has paid to the superior landlord, amounts
to such neglect or refusal. Chesterman v. Mann, 192. 2. Under Lessee.] An under lessee, who is not himself bound to take a renewal of his
lease, but who is entitled to the benefit of a covenant by his lessor for the renewal of his under-lease, upon payment of his proportion of the fines and expenses of a renewal by the superior landlord, ought, if he complains of the amount of such proportion required from him by the mesne landlord, to apply without delay to a court of equity to assess the sum which he ought to pay, submitting himself to the jurisdiction of that court, to compel him to pay a reasonable sum; and if instead of making such application, and after notice from his mesne landlord that the fine must be paid in a certain time or his right will be excluded, he should delay the payment, the objection that the sum demanded from him was unreasonable, will not excuse his laches.