Case Law Database - Free Law Cases:
Are You Writing a Law Essay?
Perhaps you are currently struggling with a dissertation or piece of coursework? Law Teacher provides students with hundreds of resources to make academic life so much easier! The case law database you are currently viewing is one such resource, but why not purchase a custom essay for guaranteed success?! Our researchers have access to thousands of cases similar to this one. So stop struggling - Order a Custom Essay Today!
Case Law : Company | Contract | Criminal | Employment | Equity | EU | Land | Tort | Other
Adams v Angell
(1876) 5 Ch D 634, 46 LJ Ch 54, 352, 36 LT 334
Court: CA
Judgment Date: circa 1876
Case History
Annotations | Case Name | Citations | Court | Date | Signal |
- | Adams v Angell | (1877) 5 Ch D 644 | CA | circa 1877 | |
Affirming | Adams v Angell | (1876) 5 Ch D 634, 46 LJ Ch 54, 352, 36 LT 334 | CA | circa 1876 |
Cases referring to this case
Annotations: All Cases Court: ALL COURTS
Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)
Treatment | Case Name | Citations | Court | Date | Signal |
Considered | Parkash v Irani Finance Ltd | [1970] Ch 101, [1969] 1 All ER 930, [1969] 2 WLR 1134, 20 P & CR 385, 113 Sol Jo 106 | Ch D | circa 1970 | |
Considered | Warwick's Settlement Trusts, Re, Greville Trust Co v Grey | [1938] Ch 530, [1938] 1 All ER 639, 107 LJ Ch 233, 82 Sol Jo 231, 158 LT 319, 54 TLR 483 | CA | circa 1938 | |
Considered | Liquidation Estates Purchase Co v Willoughby | [1898] AC 321, 67 LJ Ch 251, 46 WR 589, 78 LT 329, 14 TLR 295 | HL | circa 1898 | |
Approved | Thorne v Cann | [1895] AC 11, 64 LJ Ch 1, 11 R 67, 76 LT 852 | HL | circa 1895 | |
Considered | Thorne v Cann | [1895] AC 11, 64 LJ Ch 1, 11 R 67, 76 LT 852 | HL | circa 1895 | |
Considered | Minter v Carr | [1894] 3 Ch 498, 63 LJ Ch 705, 7 R 558, 71 LT 526 | CA | circa 1894 | |
Considered | Pride, Re, Shackell v Colnett | [1891] 2 Ch 135, 61 LJ Ch 9, 39 WR 471, 64 LT 768 | Ch D | circa 1891 |
Cases considered by this case
Annotations: All CasesCourt: ALL COURTS
Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)
Treatment | Case Name | Citations | Court | Date | Signal |
Considered | Watts v Symes | (1851) 1 De GM & G 240, 21 LJ Ch 713, 16 Jur 114, 18 LTOS 216 | pre-SC | circa 1851 | |
Considered | Toulmin v Steere | (1817) 3 Mer 210 | pre-SC | circa 1817 | |
Distinguishe | Toulmin v Steere | (1817) 3 Mer 210 | pre-SC | circa 1817 |
Catchwords & Digest
EQUITY - EQUITABLE DOCTRINES AFFECTING PROPERTY - MERGER OF ESTATES AND CHARGES - IN EQUITY - PRESUMPTION OF MERGER - EVIDENCE AND PROOF - CORRESPONDENCE - BETWEEN SOLICITORS AND TRUSTEE - ADMISSIBLE
After a decree in a foreclosure suit to which both the mortgagor and the first and second mortgagees, were parties, plaintiff, the first mortgagee purchased the equity of redemption from the trustee in bankruptcy of the mortgagor and by the deed of assignment, in consideration of £1,380, the sum due on the first mortgage, retained by the first mortgagee in full satisfaction of his debt, and of £20 paid to the trustee, making the purchase-money of £1,400, the trustee assigned the mortgaged property to the first mortgagee subject to the aforesaid claim of the second mortgagee. The value of the mortgaged property did not exceed £1,380. The second mortgagee contended that the effect of this purchase was to extinguish the first mortgage debt, and to let in his own charge as a first incumbrance. A correspondence took place between the solicitors of the first mortgagee and the trustee at the time of the purchase: Held (1) (Court of Appeal) looking at the surrounding circumstances the conveyance sufficiently expressed an intention to keep the first mortgage alive; and Toulmin v Steere , did not apply; (2) (Hall V-C) the question being one of intention, a correspondence between the solicitor of the first mortgagee and the trustee in bankruptcy at the time of the purchase, was admissible in evidence, on the question whether it was intended to keep the first mortgage alive.
(3) The mere fact of a charge having been paid off does not decide the question whether it is extinguished. If a charge is paid off by a tenant for life without any expression of his intention he retains the benefit of it against the inheritance. Although he has not declared his intention of keeping it alive, it is presumed that his intention was to keep it alive, because it is manifestly for his benefit. On the other hand, when the owner of an estate in fee or in tail pays off a charge, the presumption is the other way, but in either case the person paying off the charge can, by expressly declaring his intention, either keep it alive or destroy it. If there is no reason for keeping it alive, then, especially in the case of an owner in fee, equity will, in the absence of any declaration of his intention, destroy it; but if there is any reason for keeping it alive, such as the existence of another incumbrance, equity will not destroy it (Jessel MR).
EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - FACTS WHICH MAY BE PROVED - MATTERS FORMING PART OF RES GESTA - FACTS SHOWING STATE OF MIND - INTENTION OR MOTIVE - WHEN IN ISSUE - WHAT MAY BE EVIDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PARTIES - INTENTION TO PRESERVE CHARGE
After a decree in a foreclosure suit to which both the mortgagor and the first and second mortgagees were parties, plaintiff, first mortgagee, purchased the equity of redemption from the trustee in bankruptcy of the mortgagor and by deed of assignment in consideration of £1,380, the sum due on first mortgage retained by the first mortgagee in full satisfaction of his debt and of £20 paid to the trustee, making the purchase-money £1,400, the trustee assigned the mortgaged property to the first mortgagee subject to the claim of the second mortgagee. The value of the mortgaged property did not exceed £1,380. The second mortgagee contended that the effect of this purchase was to extinguish the first mortgage debt and to let in his own charge as a first incumbrance. A correspondence took place between the solicitors of the first mortgagee and the trustee at the time of the purchase: Held the question being one of intention, a correspondence between the solicitors of the first mortgagee and the trustee in bankruptcy at the time of the purchase was admissible in evidence, on the question whether it was intended to keep the first mortgage alive.
MORTGAGES - DISCHARGE OF MORTGAGES - BY MERGER - MERGER IN EQUITY - MORTGAGEE PURCHASING EQUITY OF REDEMPTION - WHETHER PRIOR CHARGE KEPT ALIVE - QUESTION OF INTENTION
After a decree in a foreclosure suit to which both the mortgagor and the first and second mortgagees were parties, plaintiff, the first mortgagee, purchased the equity of redemption from the trustee in bankruptcy of the mortgagor, and by the deed of assignment, in consideration of £1,380, the sum due on the first mortgage retained by the first mortgagee 'in full satisfaction of' his debt, and of £20 paid to the trustee, making the purchase-money of £1,400, the trustee assigned the mortgaged property to the first mortgagee 'subject to the aforesaid claim' of the second mortgagee. The value of the mortgaged property did not exceed £1,380. The second mortgagee contended that the effect of this purchase was to extinguish the first mortgage debt, and to let in his own charge as a first incumbrance. A correspondence took place between the solicitors of the first mortgagee and the trustee at the time of the purchase: Held looking at the surrounding circumstances the conveyance sufficiently expressed an intention to keep the first mortgage alive; and that Toulmin v Steere , did not apply.
MORTGAGES - DISCHARGE OF MORTGAGES - BY MERGER - MERGER IN EQUITY - REBUTTAL OF PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF OR AGAINST MERGER - EVIDENCE - PROOF OF INTENTION - BY CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN SOLICITORS
After a decree in a foreclosure suit to which both the mortgagor and the first and second mortgagees were parties, the plaintiff, the first mortgagee, purchased the equity of redemption from the trustee in bankruptcy of the mortgagor, and by the deed of assignment, in consideration of £1,380, the sum due on the first mortgage, retained by the first mortgagee 'in full satisfaction' of his debt, and of £20 paid to the trustee, making the purchase-money of £1,400, the trustee assigned the mortgaged property to the first mortgagee, 'subject to the aforesaid claim' of the second mortgagee. The value of the mortgaged property did not exceed £1,380. The second mortgagee contended that the effect of this purchase was to extinguish the first mortgage debt, and to let in his own charge as a first incumbrance. A correspondence took place between the solicitors of the first mortgagee and the trustee at the time of the purchase: Held the question being one of intention, a correspondence between the solicitors of the first mortgagee and the trustee in bankruptcy at the time of the purchase, was admissible in evidence, on the question whether it was intended to keep the first mortgage alive.
