Rudge v Richens (1873) LR 8 CP 358
Lender entitled to exercise power of sale when borrower in default
Facts
The plaintiff lender took possession of mortgaged premises and sold them after a default in mortgage payments. The defendant borrower pleaded, on equitable grounds, that he had been deprived of his right to have the premises re-conveyed to him upon payment of the principal money and interest due.
Issues
The Court considered the principles of equity in relation to mortgages. It considered the case of Walker v Jones Law Rep. 1 P. C. 50. In that case,it was confirmed that the borrower in a mortgage has the right to a reconveyance of the mortgage property upon payment of the money due under the mortgage and that every lender is under a duty to make such a reconveyance where payment is made. This is the necessary result of the relative positions of the parties. However, in the present case, despite the sale of the mortgaged property by the plaintiff, there remained an outstanding balance of principle and interest.
Decision/Outcome
Keating J upheld the judge at chambers decision to strike out the defendant plea as bad and dishonest. The authorities relied upon by the defendant showed that, where the claim of a lender has been satisfied, the borrower is entitled to a reconveyance of the property. However, this did not apply in circumstances where an amount remained outstanding. Grove J concurred with Keating J and added that the plaintiff had an undoubted right to exercise the power of sale and the defendant’s plea was no answer to this.
259 words
Updated 20 March 2026
This article discusses Rudge v Richens (1873) LR 8 CP 358, a nineteenth-century case concerning a mortgagee’s power of sale and the mortgagor’s equity of redemption. The legal principles described remain broadly accurate as a matter of historical common law and equity. The mortgagor’s right to redeem upon full payment of principal and interest, and the mortgagee’s right to exercise a power of sale upon default, continue to form part of English mortgage law, now supplemented and regulated primarily by the Law of Property Act 1925 (sections 101–107 governing the statutory power of sale, and section 91 governing the court’s power to order sale). Readers should note that modern mortgage disputes are governed extensively by statute and, for regulated residential mortgages, by Financial Conduct Authority rules under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as well as pre-action protocols for possession claims. The case retains value as an early illustration of foundational equitable principles but should not be read in isolation from the modern legislative framework. No subsequent case or statutory change has overturned the core propositions stated in the article.
