Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  















Equity - From: 1200 To: 1799

This page lists 49 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.

 
Anonymous [1482] EngR 2 [1482] EngR 2; (1482) Cary 2; (1482) 21 ER 1 (B)
1482


Equity
Payment without acquittal.-A mm payeth debt upon a single obligation without taking acquittance, therefore this will not discharge him at the common law, but he shall be relieved therein in chancery (quare 22 E. 4. 6 [1482]) by the party's oath, but not by witness.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Opinion [1581] EngR 37; (1581-82) Toth 141; (1581) 21 ER 148 (A)
1581


Equity
The Lord Bromley was of opinion in Caudge and Lawyer's case, 24 Eliz. [1581-821], that the land should go as the law had settled it and conscience should be supplied with money.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Sym's Case [1584] Cro Eliz 33; [1584] 73 ER 412
1584


Equity
Where one of two or more joint tenants of land grants a parcel of that land to a third party, that acts to sever the joint tenancy.

 
Sir Thomas Bennet, And Sir William Brownlow v Box, Stonehouse and Others [1662] EngR 253; (1662) 1 Chan Cas 12; (1662) 22 ER 669 (B)
1662


Trusts, Equity
Trust Lands no Assets in Equity, tho' the Trust be decreed in Equity.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Martyn v Perryman [1662] EngR 195; (1662-63) 1 Rep Ch 235; (1662) 21 ER 559 (B)
1662


Equity

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Sir Ralph Bovey v Skipwith; 1671 - [1671] EngR 9; (1671) 3 Rep Ch 67; (1671) 21 ER 731 (A)

 
 Sir Ralph Bovey v Skipwith; 25-May-1671 - [1671] EngR 28; (1671) 1 Chan Cas 201; (1671) 22 ER 762 (A)
 
Vawdrey v Pannell [1675] EngR 1709; (1675) 1 Rolle 331; (1675) 81 ER 522
1675


Equity

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Povye's Case; 1680 - [1680] EngR 191; (1680) 2 Freem Chy 51; (1680) 22 ER 1052 (B)
 
Lee v Sir Robert Henley et al [1681] EngR 100; (1681) 1 Vern 37; (1681) 23 ER 292
1681


Equity
Omission in a voluntary conveyance not supplied in equity
[ Commonlii ]
 
Wagstaff v Read [1683] EngR 80; (1683) 2 Chan Cas 156; (1683) 22 ER 892 (C)
20 Nov 1683


Equity, Insolvency
Purchaser not hurt in Chancery - Portman became bankrupt, the commissioners assign his Estate, whereof the Plaintiff made Title to some Goods, and exhibits his Bill. against the Defendant to discover the Goods, and their Value, and what and how much he paid for them, because the Plaintiff charges, they came to the Defendant's possession after the bankrupt broke : The Defendant sets forth, for what Goods did ever come to his Hands, he bought of Portman bona fide, for a full and valuable consideration, nor did not know, nor had any Notice that at the Time of buying until the now Bill, was a bankrupt, or of any Account of his Bankruptcy, and pleads this Matter against any Discovery.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Lord Bernard's Case 24 ER 203; (1716) Prec Ch 454
1716

Earl Cowper LC
Landlord and Tenant, Equity
The Lord Chancellor's court granted an injunction restraining a tenant for life without impeachment of waste who had committed voluntary waste of the mansion-house from committing further waste and obliging him to rebuild the mansion-house and put it into the same condition as it was in at the time of his entry, observing that the clauses of without impeachment of waste extended only to excuse from permissive waste.
1 Citers


 
Sir Harry Peachy v Duke of Somerset (1720) 1 Strange 447
1720

Lord Macclesfield
Land, Equity
Lord Macclesfield said: "The true ground of relief against penalties is from the original intent of the case, where the penalty is designed only to secure money, and the court gives him all that he expected or desired: but it is quite otherwise in the present case. These penalties or forfeitures were never intended by way of compensation, for there can be none."
1 Citers


 
Theobald Butler v Sir Thomas Prendergast And Others [1720] EngR 49; (1720) 4 Bro PC 174; (1720) 2 ER 119
13 May 1720
PC

Equity, Contract
A. agreed with B. for the purchase of timber, and together with C. entered into a bond, that A. his executors and administrators, should not cut any timber under a particular size; but, A."s name was only made use of in this agreement for C. C. cuts down timber under the size stipulated; but as there could be no remedy against C. upon the bond, it was held to be a fraud upon B. the selleir, and therefore relievable in equity.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Sir Harry Peachy v Duke of Somerset [1721] EngR 367; (1721) Prec Ch 568; (1721) 24 ER 255
16 Jun 1721


Land, Equity
A court of equity will not assist a copyholder against a forfeiture, which is found such at law, unless in cases where compensation can be made.
1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
Keech v Sandford [1726] Sel Cas 1 King 61; [1726] EWHC Ch J31; [1726] EngR 954; (1726) 25 ER 223 (C); [1726] EWHC Ch J76
1726
ChD
Lord Harcourt LC, King L
Trusts, Equity
A landlord refused to renew a lease to a trustee for the benefit of a minor. The trustee then took a new lease for his own benefit. The new lease had not formed part of the original trust property; the minor could not have acquired the new lease from the landlord; and the trustee acted innocently, believing that he committed no breach of trust and that the new lease did not belong in equity to his cestui que trust. Held: A trustee of a lease may not renew a lease for his own benefit but holds the renewed lease upon a constructive trust for the beneficiaries. The court forbade the trustee to take for himself a renewed term under a lease which he held for the benefit of an infant.
Lord Harcourt LC said: "though I do not say there is a fraud in this case, yet he should rather have let it run out, than to have had the lease to himself. This may seem hard, that the trustee is the only person of all mankind who might not have the lease: but it is very proper that rule should be strictly pursued, and not in the least relaxed; for it is very obvious what would be the consequence of letting trustees have the lease, on refusal to renew to cestui que use." The benefit of the lease was assigned by decree to the infant and the trustee, subject to indemnity, made to account for profits.
King L said: "I very well see, if a trustee, on the refusal to renew, might have a lease to himself, few trust-estates will be renewed to cestuis que use."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Commonlii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Lord Castlemain v Lord Craven 22 ER 644; (1733) 22 Vin Abr 523; 2 Eq Ca Abr 758
1733


Landlord and Tenant, Equity
Both voluntary and permissive waste (suffering houses to go out of repair) were alleged against a tenant for life. The relief sought was an account and an injunction. In relation to the permissive waste, the court refused to order an account or an injunction requiring the tenant to rebuild, notwithstanding an argument that the court ought to intervene since the plaintiff had no remedy at law by reason of the intervention of another estate between the plaintiff's remainder and the defendant's estate for life. A court of equity never interposes in case of permissive waste either to prohibit or to give satisfaction, as it does in the case of wilful waste.
1 Citers


 
Stirling v Earl of Lauderdale (1733) Mor 2930
1733


Scotland, Equity
The maxim ignorantia juris non excusat did not apply only to the law of delict.
1 Citers


 
Lord Glenorchy v Bosville [1733] EngR 60; (1733) Cas T Talbot 3; (1733) 25 ER 628
1733


Equity
A. devises lands to his sister B. and C. and their heirs and assigns, upon trust, that until his grand-daughter D. should marry or die, to receive the profits, and thereout to pay her £100 a year for her maintenance : the residue to pay debts and legacies.
After payment thereof, in trust for the said D. and upon further trust, that if she lived to marry a protestant of the church of England, and at the time of such marriage be of the age of twenty-one or upwards, or if under that age, such marriage be with the consent of the said B. then to convey, with all convenient speed, after such marriage, to the use of the said D. for life, sans waste voluntary waste in houses excepted ; remainder to her husband for life ; remainder to the issue of her body, with remainders over ; and upon further trust, that if the said D. die unmarried, then to the use of B. for life ; remainder to the son of his other granddaughter E. in tail ; remainder to the defendant C. remainder to his first and other sons ; remainder to A's right heirs ; and upon further trust, that if D. marry not according to the will, then upon such marriage to convey to trustees, as to one moiety to the use of D. for life, then to trustees to preserve contingent remainders : remainder to her first and every other son, being a protestant with remainders over ; and as to the other moiety, to the son of his daughter E. in like manner. A. dies, D. attains her full age ; and upon a treaty of marriage with F. applies to B. and C. for a conveyance to herself for life ; remainder to her intended husband for life ; remainder to the issue of her body : B. executes such conveyance, but G. refuses ; D. suffers a recovery of the whole to the use of herself in fee, and then marries P. who made a considerable settlement upon her ; she covenants to settle her estate upon husband and wife ; remainder to the first, &c., sons in tail : remainder to survivor of husband and wife in fee. They bring a bill to compel C. to convey, &c, decreed (not an estate tail to D) but an estate for life sans waste, ut supra, as being the intent of A upon the will with remainders over in strict settlement.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Legg v Goldwire [1736] EngR 81; (1736) Cas T Talbot 20; (1736) 25 ER 637
10 Nov 1736

Talbot LC
Equity, Trusts, Family
By Lord Chancellor Talbot - Where articles are entered into before marriage, and a settlement is made after marriage different from those articles (as if by articles the estate was to be in strict settlement, and by the settlement the husband is made tenant in tail whereby he hath it in his power to bar the issue), this Court will set up the articles against the settlement; but where both articles and settlement are previous to the marriage, at a time when all parties are at liberty, the settlement differing from the articles will be taken as a new agreement between them and shall control the articles. And although, in the case of West v Errissey . . afterwards in the House of Lords, in 1727, the articles were made to control the settlement made before marriage, yet that resolution no way contradicts the general rule; for in that case the settlement was expressly mentioned to be made in pursuance and performance of the said marriage articles, whereby the intent appeared to be still the same as it was at the making of the articles.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Jones v Coxeter (1742) Atk 400
1742

Lord Hardwicke
Costs, Equity
Lord Hardwicke said: 'The giving of costs in equity is entirely discretionary and is not at all conformable to the rule at law.'
1 Citers



 
 Lanoy v The Duke And Dutchess of Athol; 13-Nov-1742 - [1742] EngR 130; (1742) 2 Atk 444; (1742) 26 ER 668
 
Corporation of Burford v Lenthall (1743) 2 Atk 551
1743

Lord Hardwicke
Costs, Equity
The court considered how the Courts of Equity had dealt with orders for costs: 'Courts of Equity have in all cases done it not from any authority but from conscience and arbitrio boni viri, as to the satisfaction on one side or other on account of vexation.'
1 Citers


 
Lane v Page [1754] EngR 106; (1754) Amb 233; (1754) 27 ER 155
15 Jun 1754


Equity
Fraudulent execution of a power to jointure. A power to jointure having been executed under an agreement that the creditor of the husband should have part of the jointure, the appointment was set aside as far as the creditors were to benefit. The fraud being on the remainder man confirmation by the wife after husband's death of no effect.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Jean Craik and John Stewart Her Husband v Grizel Craik, Only Surviving Daughter of Adam Craik [1757] UKHL 1 - Paton - 643
25 Mar 1757
HL

Scotland, Equity
Entail - Provision - Equity. -
An entail empowered the next heir to grant provisions to his younger children; but he conceiving that the entail so executed was in fraud of his father's marriage-contract, which provided the fee of the estate to the heir of the marriage, disponed the estate in fee to his own daughter, and did not exercise the powers conferred of granting provisions. Held, on reduction of the son's settlement, as in fraud of the entail, that when she was deprived of the benefit of her father's settlement, equity will support that deed to the extent of a reasonable provision, although the powers of the entail in this respect had not been exercised.
[ Bailii ]
 
Aleyn v Belchier [1758] EngR 208; (1758) 1 Eden 132; (1758) 28 ER 634
5 Jul 1758


Equity
Power of jointuring executed in favour of a wife, but with an agreement that the wife should only receive a part as an annuity for her own benefit, and that the residue should be applied to the payment of the husband's debts : held, a fraud upon the power and the execution set aside, except so far as related to the annuity, the bill containing a submission to pay it, and only seeking relief against the other objects of the appointment
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Burr 1005
1760
KBD
Lord Mansfield CJ
Equity
An action for money had and received will only lie where it is inequitable for the defendant to retain the money.
1 Citers


 
Price v Neal (1762) 3 Burr 1354
1762


Equity
Money paid under a forged bill may be irrecoverable.
1 Citers



 
 William Belchier And Others v John Renforth; PC 9-Feb-1764 - [1764] EngR 26; (1764) 5 Bro PC 292; (1764) 2 ER 686

 
 Smith v Clay; 10-May-1767 - [1767] EngR 55; (1767) 3 Bro CC 646; (1767) 29 ER 743

 
 Smith v Clay; 10-May-1767 - [1767] EngR 54; (1767) Amb 645; (1767) 27 ER 419
 
Golightly v Reynolds (1772) Lofft. 88
1774


Equity
The identity of funds was traced through different hands and shops.
1 Citers


 
Clarke v Shee and Johnson (1774) Lofft 756; (1774) 1 Cowp 197
1774

Lord Mansfield
Torts - Other, Equity
A servant diverted money from customers of his employer and bought lottery tickets. Lotteries were illegal and void under the Lottery Act 1772. The master recovered from the defendants who were the holders of the lottery and had innocently received the stolen money. The defendants unsuccessfully argued that there was no contract between the master and the defendants and that the defendants had given consideration for the receipt of the money. It was argued that though the defendants were fortunate in that the lottery tickets issued for the stolen money were not winning tickets, the defendants ran the risk "and therefore performed their part of the agreement: consequently, there is no foundation for an action to recover back the money paid." Held: The plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum of £460 from the defendant as money had and received by him for the use of the plaintiff.
Lord Mansfield said: "This is a liberal action in the nature of a bill in equity; and if, under the circumstances of the case, it appears that the defendant cannot in conscience retain what is the subject matter of it, the plaintiff may well support this action . . . the plaintiff does not sue as standing in the place of Wood his clerk: for the money and notes which Wood paid to the defendants, are the identical notes and money of the plaintiff. Where money or notes are paid bona fide, and upon a valuable consideration, they never shall be brought back by the true owner; but where they come mala fide into a person's hands, they are in the nature of specific property; and if their identity can be traced and ascertained, the party has a right to recover. It is of public benefit and example that it should; but otherwise, if they cannot be followed and identified, because there it might be inconvenient and open a door to fraud. Miller v. Race, 1 Burr. 452: and in Golightly v. Reynolds (1772) Lofft. 88 the identity was traced through different hands and shops. Here the plaintiff sues for his identified property, which has come to the hands of the defendant iniquitously and illegally, in breach of the Act of Parliament, therefore they have no right to retain it: and consequently the plaintiff is well entitled to recover."
Lottery Act 1772
1 Citers


 
Marriott v Hampton [1775-1802] All ER Rep 631
1775
KBD
Lord Kenyon CJ
Equity, Litigation Practice
The plaintiff paid for goods bought from the defendant. The defendant then brought an action for payment of the price alleging that he had not been paid. The claimant could not find his receipt for the first payment, and was ordered by the court to pay again. He then found the receipt and brought an action for money had and received to recover the second payment. Held: Where money has been wrongly paid under the compulsion of legal process it cannot be recovered back in action for money had and received to the payer's use.
Lord Kenyon said: "I am afraid of such a precedent. If this action could be maintained I know now that cause of action could ever be at rest. After a recovery by process of law there must be an end to litigation, otherwise there would be no security for any person."
1 Citers


 
Lowry v Bourdieu (1780) 2 Doug. 468
1780

Buller J
Equity
A mistake of law was not a good ground for recovery of money paid in error.
1 Citers


 
Russel v Russel [1783] EngR 76; (1783) 1 Bro CC 269; (1783) 28 ER 1121 (B)
16 May 1783


Land, Equity

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Sloman v Walter [1783] EngR 158; (1783) 1 Bro CC 418; (1783) 28 ER 1213
14 Nov 1783

Lord Thurlow LC
Contract, Equity
Common law enforced the bonds according to their letter. But equity regarded the real intention of the parties as being that the bond should stand as security only, and restrained its enforcement at common law on terms that the debtor paid damages, interest and costs.
Lord Thurlow LC said: "where a penalty is inserted merely to secure the enjoyment of a collateral object, the enjoyment of the object is considered as the principal intent of the deed, and the penalty only as accessional, and, therefore, only to secure the damage really incurred . ."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Bonney v Ridgard; 3-Dec-1784 - [1784] EngR 230; (1784) 1 Cox 145; (1784) 29 ER 1101 (B); (1784) 1 Cox Eq Cas 145
 
Dering v Earl of Winchelsea [1787] EngR 39; (1787) 1 Cox 319; (1787) 29 ER 1184
8 Feb 1787

Lord Chief Baron Eyre, Baron Hotham
Equity
The doctrine of contribution amongst sureties is not founded in contract, but is the result of general equity on the ground of equality of burthen and benefit, Therefor where three sureties are bound by different instruments, but for the same principal and the same engagement, they shall contribute.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Hogg v Kirby [1789] EngR 1227; (1789-1817) 2 Ves Jun Supp 100; (1789) 34 ER 1013 (B)
1789


Equity

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Lord Walpole v Lord Orford [1789] EngR 1464; (1789-1817) 1 Ves Jun Supp 393; (1789) 34 ER 842 (B)
1789


Equity, Wills and Probate
The court was asked, where there were two inconsistent wills, to which of them a later codicil must be held to refer.
The equitable maxim, voluntas testatoris ambulatotia est usque ad mortem, operates so that an instrument which appears to be and is in the form of a testamentary disposition, yet, if it claims to be irrevocable, can only operate as a deed and not as a will.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Caffrey v Darby [1789] EngR 325; (1789-1817) 1 Ves Jun Supp 619; (1789) 34 ER 948 (C)
1789


Equity, Wills and Probate
As a general rule, executors must get in the property of the testator by all possible remedies.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Craythorne v Swinburne [1789] EngR 449; (1789-1817) 2 Ves Jun Supp 363; (1789) 34 ER 1133 (E)
1789


Equity

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
York Buildings Co v Mackenzie 3 Paton 378; (1795) 3 ER 432
8 Mar 1793
SCS
Lord Cranworth
Insolvency, Equity
The defendant was the "common agent" for the sale of the assets of an insolvent partnership and purchased some of the assets at a judicial auction. Held: The purchase was voidable, even though it was made at a sale by auction.
Who bears the Expense of a Ranking and Sale? - Election of the Common Agent. - Can the Common Agent be a Purchaser? - Expense of an interim Warrant. The Common agent in a ranking is disqualified from purchasing at the judicial sale carried on under his direction.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Roles v Rosewell [1794] EngR 2173; (1794) 5 TR 538; (1794) 101 ER 302 (B)
12 Feb 1794


Equity
The stat, 8 & 9 W. 3, e. 11, s. 8, which enacts "That in actions on any penal sum for non-performance of covenants, and co. the plaintiff may assign as many breaches, and co. and if judgment shall be given for the plaintiff on nihil dicit the plaintiff may suggest on the roll as many breaches, and co. as he shall think fit, upon which shall issue a writ to the sheriff to summon a jury before the Justice of Assize, and co. to enquire, and co and to assess the damages," etc. is compulsory on the plaintiff; and he cannot enter up judgment for the whole penalty on a judgment by default, as he might have done at common law.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Kemp v Coleman [1795] EngR 2269; (1795) 1 Salk 156; (1795) 91 ER 144 (A)
1795


Family, Equity
A bond given to refund part of a portion without father’s privity, is void.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Weigall v Waters (1795) 6 TR 488
1795

Lord Kenyon
Landlord and Tenant, Equity
Where a party has fairly laid out money on repairing what he was not bound to repair, a court of equity might grant him relief. The tenant had paid £ 30 but Lord Kenyon still regarded the cross-claim as one for uncertain damages. The quantum of the sum must have been either unchallenged or unchallengeable before it could be regarded as deductible.
1 Citers


 
The Governor And Company of Undertakers For Raising Thames Water In York Buildings v Alexander Mackenzie, Writer, To The Signet [1795] EngR 4112; (1795) 8 Bro PC 42; (1795) 3 ER 432
15 May 1795
PC

Insolvency, Equity
Who bears the Expense of a Ranking and Sale? - Election of the Common Agent. - Can the Common Agent be a Purchaser? - Expense of an interim Warrant.
1 Cites


 
Lord Cranstown v Johnston (1796) 3 Ves 170
1796

Arden MR
Equity
Lord Cranstown was the absentee owner of a valuable estate in a Caribbean island, but he owed the defendant Johnston a modest amount of money. Johnston sued for the money to be brought in the local court, whose laws permitted a form of substituted service. He nailed the writ on a post and on the courthouse door. Thus, as Johnston had intended all along, Lord Cranstown received no actual notice of the proceedings. Judgment was given by default, the estate was put up for auction to satisfy the judgment, and Johnston, who was the only bidder, acquired the property for the amount of the debt, which was far less than the value of the estate. From beginning to end Johnston uttered no false representation to anyone, nor did he violate any law of the island, nor did he owe any contractual obligation to Lord Cranstown; but he did know that he was going behind Lord Cranstown's back in getting the estate for a pittance. Lord Cranstown brought suit in England to recover the estate. Held: Although he would not question the jurisdiction of the foreign court, or the regularity of its proceedings, and although he would not presume that the local laws would set aside the transaction, it was a fraud all the same according to English rules of equity, and that the defendant Johnston must restore the estate upon being repaid the original debt and expenses.
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.