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: 1800 To: 1849

This page lists 51 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.

 
Caffrey v Darby 31 ER 1159; (1801) 6 Ves 488; [1775-1802] All ER Rep 507; [1801] EngR 484; (1801) 6 Ves Jun 488; (1801) 31 ER 1159
1801

Lord Eldon LC
Trusts, Equity
A fiduciary has a strict duty to account; equity imposes stringent liability on a fiduciary as a deterrent – pour encourager les autres. Lord Eldon LC said: "It would be very dangerous, though no fraud could be imputed to the trustees, and no kind of interest or benefit to themselves was looked to, to lay down this principle; that trustees might without any responsibility act, as these did: in eight years, within which time the whole money ought to have been paid, receiving only £250; and taking no step as to the remainder. It would be an encouragement to bad motives; and it may be impossible to detect undue motives. If we get the length of neglect in not recovering this money by taking possession of the property, will they be relieved from that by the circumstance, that the loss has ultimately happened by something, that is not a direct and immediate consequence of their negligence: viz. the decision of a doubtful question of law? Even supposing they are right in saying, this was a very doubtful question, and they could not look to the possibility of its being so decided, yet, if they have been already guilty of negligence, they must be responsible for any loss in any way to that property: for whatever may be the immediate cause, the property would not have been in a situation to sustain that loss, if it had not been for their negligence. If they had taken possession of the property, it would not have been in his possession. If the loss had happened by fire, lightning, or any other accident, that would not be an excuse for them, if guilty of previous negligence. That was their fault."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Milward v Earl Thanet (1801) 5 Ves 720n; [1801] EngR 144; 31 ER 824
1801
CA
Lord Alvanley MR
Equity
Lord Alvanley MR said: 'a party cannot call upon a Court of Equity for specific performance, unless he has shewn himself ready, desirous, prompt, and eager.'
1 Citers


 
Muckleston v Brown (1801) 6 Ves. 52
1801

Lord Eldon
Wills and Probate, Equity
'Let the estate lie where it falls.'
1 Citers



 
 Astley v Frances Weldon; CCP 27-Jan-1801 - [1801] EngR 108; (1801) 2 Bos and Pul 346; (1801) 126 ER 1318
 
Dann v Spurrier (1802) 7 Ves Jun 231; [1789] EngR 482; (1789-1817) 2 Ves Jun Supp 26; (1789) 34 ER 982 (A)
1802

Lord Eldon LC
Equity
The tenant had carried out improvements to the property. It was uncertain whether the length of the term (7, 14 or 21 years) was at the option of the lessee alone. Held. The case was decided on construction of the lease. Lord Eldon made it clear obiter that the fact of the defendant's knowledge (of the plaintiff's mistake) must be proved by strong and cogent evidence. He gave some weight to the fact that the plaintiff was a professional man who had acted incautiously. He said: "this Court will not permit a man knowingly, though but passively, to encourage another to lay out money under an erroneous opinion of title; and the circumstance of looking on is in many cases as strong as using terms of encouragement."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Curtis v Perry; 10-Mar-1802 - (1802) 6 Ves 739; [1802] EngR 125; (1802) 6 Ves Jun 739; (1802) 31 ER 1285

 
 Hogg v Kirby; 15-Mar-1803 - [1803] EngR 513; (1803) 8 Ves Jun 215; (1803) 32 ER 336 (B)

 
 Aldrich v Cooper, Durham v Lankester, Durham v Armstrong; 26-Apr-1803 - [1803] EngR 542; (1803) 8 Ves Jun 382; (1803) 32 ER 402 (B)

 
 Jackson v Jackson; 4-Jul-1804 - (1804) 9 Ves Jr 591; [1804] EngR 302; (1804) 9 Ves Jun 591; (1804) 32 ER 732

 
 Hovenden v Lord Annesley; 1806 - (1806) 2 Sch and Lef 607
 
Craythorne v Swinburne [1807] EngR 343; (1807) 14 Ves Jun 160; (1807) 33 ER 482
23 Jul 1807

Lord Eldon LC
Equity
No contribution in favour of one Surety against another : his engagement, according to the bond, and parol evidence, which was held admissible, being, not as Co-surety, but, without the privity of the other, as a distinct collatteral secnrity, limited to default of payment by the Principle and the other surety.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Browne v Warner [1807] EngR 342; (1807) 14 Ves Jun 156; (1807) 33 ER 480 (B)
23 Jul 1807

Lord Eldon LC
Landlord and Tenant, Equity

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Lupton v White (1808) 15 Ves 442; [1808] EngR 429; (1808) 15 Ves Jun 432; (1808) 33 ER 817
19 Dec 1808


Equity
Whatever alteration of form any property may undergo, the true owner is entitled to seize it in its new shape if he can prove the identity of the original material.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Kendall, Ex Parte; 7-May-1811 - [1811] EngR 268; (1811) 17 Ves Jun 514; (1811) 34 ER 199
 
Diplock And Others v Blackburn [1811] EngR 468; (1811) 3 Camp 43; (1811) 170 ER 1300 (A)
19 Jul 1811


Transport, Equity
If the master of a ship in a foreign port, from the state of the exchange, receives a premum for a bill drawn upon England on account of the ship, this belongs to his owner, although there may have been a usage for masters of shps to apprapriate such premiums to their own use.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Brisbane v Dacres (1813) 5 Taunt. 143
1813

Gibbs J, Heath J, Chief Justice, Sir James Mansfield, Chambre J dissenting
Contract, Equity
The commander of a naval vessel, HMS Arethusa, had paid to the Admiral in command a proportion of freight received for the carriage of publicly owned bullion on board the Arethusa in the belief that this was due to the Admiral as a matter of usage. On later discovering that the money was not due because the usage had been discontinued, he sought to recover it from the Admiral's widow and executrix. He challenged the decision in Bilbie v Limley. Held: The court had no role to play in the recovery of money paid by mistake. Chief Justice, Sir James Mansfield said it was not an affront to conscience to allow the money to be retained, because the admiral acted (as all admirals then did) in accordance with what was generally believed to be his accustomed right, and in particular because he might have changed his position on the faith of the payment.
Chambre J (dissenting said the maxim 'ignorantia juris non excusat' applied only in cases of "delinquency".
Gibbs J described the universal opinion among the practitioners in the Court of King's Bench that where money was paid with knowledge of the facts it could not be recovered on the ground of mistake: "We must take this payment to have been made under a demand of right, and I think that where a man demands money of another as a matter of right, and that other, with a full knowledge of the facts upon which the demand is founded, has paid a sum, he never can recover back the sum he has so voluntarily paid. It may be, that upon a further view he may form a different opinion of the law, and it may be, his subsequent opinion may be the correct one. If we were to hold otherwise, I think that many inconveniences may arise; there are many doubtful questions of law: when they arise, the Defendant has an option, either to litigate the question, or to submit to the demand, and pay the money. I think, that by submitting to the demand, he that pays the money gives it to the person to whom he pays it, and makes it his, and closes the transaction between them."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Kendall, Ex Parte; 25-May-1813 - [1813] EngR 348; (1813) 1 Ves and Bea 543; (1813) 35 ER 211 (B)
 
Taylor and Another v Sir Thomas Plumer [1815] EWHC KB J84; (1815) 3 M and S 562
10 Feb 1815
KBD
Lord Ellenborough CJ
Insolvency, Equity
Sir Thomas Plumer gave a bank draft to a stockbroker for the purpose of buying exchequer bills, and the stockbroker instead used the draft for buying American securities and doubloons for his own purposes. Held: Sir Thomas was able to trace his property into the securities and doubloons in the hands of the stockbroker, and so defeat a claim made to them by the stockbroker's assignees in bankruptcy.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Pigott v Williams (1821) 6 Madd 95
1821


Equity
The solicitor claimed fees for coduct of an action which, but for his own failings would not have been necessary. Held: The client had a set-off in equity.
1 Citers


 
Marquis of Cholmondeley v Lord Clinton [1821] EngR 422; (1821) 4 Bligh PC 1; (1821) 4 ER 721
15 Jun 1821
HL

Equity
Equity follows the law
1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Kemble v Farren; 6-Jul-1829 - [1829] EngR 590; (1829) 5 Bing 141; (1829) 130 ER 1234

 
 Wilson and M'Lellan v Sinclair; 1830 - (1830) 3 Wilson and Shaw 398
 
John Joseph Dillon, Esq v Sir William Parker, Bart [1833] EngR 137; (1833) 7 Bligh NS PC 325; (1833) 5 ER 796
1833
PC

Equity, Wills and Probate
A party claiming under an instrument, raising, as he contends, a case of election in equity against a party in possession under a legal right, must make out a clear and satisfactory case to entitle him to displace the legal right.
Where, under the will of a son, giving benefits to his father, but of doubtful construction, there was no evidence that the father understood that a case of election was raised by the will, or that in fact he elected to take under it, and to give up estates disposed of by the will, to which he was entitled under a marriage settlement; and where it was in evidence that the father did acts in opposition to the will of the son ; and where, by his own will, he so disposed of the estates, that his daughters might either claim life estates under that will, or estates in fee under the will of the son ; and it was in evidence that they by letters declared and executed deeds, reciting that they took as tenants for life under the will of their father ; and especially where the equity, if any, arose forty - three years before the suit, and the daughters had then the opportunity to call on the father to elect and failed to do so : Held, that it was doubtful whether a case of election existed, and that a party claiming under the daughters as heir could not assert such right after such lapse of time in a court of equity.
Where possession is referrible to either of two inconsistent rights, the acts of a party bound to elect, in order to constitute election, must imply a knowledge of the rights, and an intention to elect.
[ Commonlii ]
 
William Marsh, Josias Henry Stracey, And George Edward Graham v Ann Keating [1833] EngR 295; (1833,1834) 2 Cl and Fin 250; (1833) 6 ER 1149
1833


Equity

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
William Marsh, Josias Henry Stracey, And George Edward Graham v Ann Keating [1834] EngR 380; (1834) 8 Bligh NS PC 651; (1834) 5 ER 1084
1834
PC

Equity

1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Marsh v Keating; HL 1834 - [1834] EngR 879; (1834) 1 Bing NC 198; (1834) 131 ER 1094

 
 Wilson v Moore; 22-Mar-1834 - [1834] EngR 607; (1834) 1 My and K 337; (1834) 39 ER 709
 
Smith v Brooksbank [1834] EngR 880; (1834) 7 Sim 18; (1834) 58 ER 743 (B)
25 Jun 1834


Wills and Probate, Litigation Practice, Equity
A bequeathed a reversionary interest, expectant on his wife’s death, in a sum of stock to B. B. bequeathed it to C., and C. bequeathed it to D, who, on the death of A's wife, filed a bill against the trustees to have the stock transferred to him, alleging that the executors of A. and B, and C. had successively assented to the bequests. Held: that the executors were not necessary parties.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Clementson v Gandy; CA 1836 - (1836) 1 Keen 309
 
Brooksbank v Smith [1836] EngR 447; (1836) Donn Eq 11; (1836) 47 ER 193 (B)
24 Feb 1836

Baron Alderson
Equity, Limitation
In this case, trustees under a will, who were solicitors, had by mistake transferred stock to a person not entitled. Baron Alderson said, this being under circumstances of mistake, it appeared clear to him that the Plaintiffs were entitled to equitable relief ; for, on looking into the authorities he found that fraud or mistake were each of them grounds for relief in equity. Then came the question, whether the Statute of Limitations was a bar? The Statute of Limitations did not apply to Courts of Equity so as to bind them, Undoubtedly, they had exercised discretion, and very rightly, upon the rules laid down. For instance, in cases of fraud, Courts of Equity did not apply the rule in the same manner as Courts of law, which were so bound by the words of the statute, that if the cause of action bad occurred more than six years before, however equitabIe it might be, they could not permit the statute to run. Courts of Equity held, that in cases of fraud, the statute of Limitations ran from the discovery of the fraud, It appearet to jim that cases of mistake fell under the same rule, and that it would be inequitable to apply the Statute of Limitations, except in cases where a party had lain by after the mistake had been discovered, more than six years ; in this case the mistake had been discovered within six years, the statute did not, therefore, bar the Plaintiff's claim.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Brooksbank And Another v Smith [1836] EngR 446; (1836) 2 Y and C Ex 59; (1836) 160 ER 311
24 Feb 1836

Alderson B
Equity, Limitation
The testatrix died in 1818 leaving a fund in trust, subject to a life interest, for her children in equal shares, with substitutional gifts if any child predeceased her leaving issue. Her daughter Elizabeth did predecease her by two months, but on the death of the life tenant in 1827 the trustees were given incorrect information about the date of Elizabeth's death and her share (£1,000 nominal of stock) was transferred to her widower instead of to her children. When the mistake was discovered in 1833 the trustees claimed £100 stock (which was all that remained unsold) from Elizabeth's widower. The bill was issued within six years of discovery of the mistake. Alderson B held that the claim was not statute-barred. He treated it as a proprietary claim based on a mistake of fact.
1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
Don Nuno Alvares Pereira De Mello, Duke Of Cadaval, v Thomas Collins [1836] EngR 632; (1836) 4 Ad and E 858; (1836) 111 ER 1006
27 Apr 1836


Equity
Piaintiff being a foreigner, ignorant of the English language, was arrested at Falmouth soon after his first arrival there from abroad, by defendant, for 10,0001. Defendant and plaintiff then signed an agreement, by which, in consideration of 5001. paid by plaintiff to defendant, plaintiff was to be discharged, and not to be again arrested ; and, plaintiff was to put in bail in twelve days; the 5001. was to be 'as a payment in part of the writ;" arid both parties were to abide the event of the action ; the agreement contairiing no provision for refunding the money if the action ahould fail. Plaintiff paid the 500l and was released. No bail was put in ; and the writ was afterwards set aside for irregularity. Plaintiff then sued defendant for the 5001. as money had and received ; and the jury found that defendant knew that he had no claim upori plaintiff: Held, that the action lay, the payment having beeri made under the compulsioti of colourable legal process.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Tasker v Small [1836] EngR 780; (1836) Donn Eq 82; (1836) 47 ER 241 (B)
3 Jun 1836

Lord Cottenham LC
Land, Equity
The words in a Settlement to raise Money by 'Mortgage, Annuity or otherwise," authorises a Sale of a reversionary Estate.
Lord Cottenham LC said that the rule by which a purchaser becomes in equity the owner of the property sold "applies only as between the parties to the contract, and cannot be extended so as to affect the interests of others."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Thomas v Dering (1837) 1 Keen 729; [1837] EngR 595; (1837) 1 Keen 729; (1837) 48 ER 488
1837

Lord Langdale
Land, Equity
The court put forward: "the general principle that the court will not execute a contract, the performance of which is unreasonable or will be prejudicial to persons interested in the property, but not parties to the contract"
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Wilkinson And Another v Godefroy [1839] EngR 396; (1839) 9 Ad and E 536; (1839) 112 ER 1315
17 Jan 1839


Trusts, Equity
The court considered a claim for the recovery of money from a stakeholder to whom it had been entrusted, in which case a demand is necessary to throw upon the depositee a duty to repay.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rawson v Samuel [1839] EngR 522; (1839) 4 My and Cr 330; (1839) 41 ER 129 (A)
22 Feb 1839


Equity

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Kelly v Solari; CexC 1841 - (1841) 9 M and W 54
 
Rawson v Samuel (1841) 1 Cr and Ph 161; [1841] EngR 491; (1839, 1840, 1841) Cr and Ph 161; (1841) 41 ER 451
15 Apr 1841

Cottenham LC
Equity
Cottenham LC said: "We speak familiarly of equitable set-off as distinguished from set-off at law, but it will be found that this equitable set-off exists in cases where the party seeking the benefit of it can show some equitable ground for being protected against his adversary's demands. The mere existence of cross demands is not sufficient." and "Several cases were cited in support of the injunction but in every one of them except Williams v Davies (1829) 2 Sim 461 it will be found that the equity of the bill impeached the title to the legal demand."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Clifford v Turrell [1841] EngR 1212; (1841) 1 Y and CCC 138; (1841) 62 ER 826
11 Dec 1841

Knight-Bruce VC
Land, Equity, Contract
The court considered the availability of specific performance to a seller of land. Knight Bruce VC said: "A case is stated in which, setting the Statute of Frauds out of the question, a bill might have been maintained by the defendant against the plaintiff, to compel him to execute the assignment. That, therefore, is a reason to compel the performance of the terms upon which the plaintiff agreed to execute the assignment."
Extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove the existence of consideration in addition to that referred to in a deed: "It is clear, even in cases where the Statute of Frauds does not apply, that the rules of law may exclude parol evidence where a written instrument stands in competition with it; but it has long been settled that it is not within any rule of this nature to adduce evidence of a consideration additional to what is stated in the written instrument . . the rule is that where there is one consideration stated in the deed, you may prove any other consideration which existed, not in contradiction to the instrument; and it is not in contradiction to the instrument to prove a larger consideration than that which is stated".
[ Commonlii ]
 
Brydges v Branfill (1842) 12 Sim 369
1842

Sir Lancelot Shadwell VC
Equity, Vicarious Liability, Legal Professions
A tenant for life of settled land set out on an elaborate fraud aiming for the capital. It required first a private Act of Parliament to enable the estate to be sold under the direction of the court and the proceeds paid into court and invested in other land; a fictitious sale of the tenant for life's own lands to an associate of his; the application of the money in court in the purchase of the land from the associate at an excessive price; and the deliberate deception of the court to obtain an order under which part of the money in court was paid out to the tenant for life. He employed a firm of solicitors to act for him in obtaining the Act and the orders of the court and in every other proceeding under the Act. Brooks, the partner who acted in the transactions knew the circumstances of the transactions, but neither of his partners was aware that there was any fraud or irregularity in them. Held: Though the partners were blameless, they were jointly and severally liable with Brooks to make good the loss to the trust estate. The court allowed a claim in Chancery for the vicarious liability of partners for his equitable wrongdoing.
1 Citers


 
Forster v Wilson (1843) 12 M and W 191
1843


Equity
English law regards set off as a way of achieving substantial justice between the parties.
1 Citers


 
Wilson v Bell (1843) 5 I Eq 501
1843


Equity
(Ireland) All the parties to a joint personal estate in equity had throughout their lives acted on the basis that the interests were in fact under a tenancy in common. Held: The joint tenancy had been severed.

 
Carnarvon v Villebois (1844) 13 M and W 313
1844


Landlord and Tenant, Equity
The extent of an implied surrender of a lease by operation of law is commensurate with what is necessary to give validity to the transaction which the surrenderer is to be estopped from disputing.
1 Citers


 
Jones v Mossop (1844) 3 Hare 568
1844

Sir James Wigram V-C
Insolvency, Equity
Mr Reed held a bond for £500 given by Mr Jones, who had also guaranteed some loans to Mr Reed by third parties. Mr Reed died insolvent and Mr Jones was called to pay £377 to the lenders under the guarantees. When Mr Reed's assignee Mr Mossop sued Mr Jones on the bond, he brought proceedings in equity claiming to be entitled to set off the £377 he had paid. Held: Because Mr Reed had never actually been made bankrupt, the insolvency rules did not apply and the court C gave relief under general equitable principles, saying "if Richard Reed had been bankrupt, I should have had no difficulty in deciding this case."
1 Citers


 
Fletcher v Fletcher [1844] EWHC Ch J69; (1844) 4 Hare 67; 67 ER 564
25 Jul 1844
ChD

Wills and Probate, Equity
The son of the deceased sought payment under a deed executed by the testator but not disclosed to his trustees who now refused to act upon it, saying it was a voluntary deed. Held: The debt must be paid: "The rule against relief to volunteers cannot, I conceive, in a case like that before me, be stated higher than this, that a Court of Equity will not, in favour of a volunteer, give to a deed any effect beyond what the law will give to it. But if the author of the deed has subjected himself to a liability at law, and the legal liability comes regularly to be enforced in equity, as in the cases before referred to, the observation that the claimant is a volunteer is of no value in favour of those who represent the author of the deed. " and " Its being executory makes no difference, whether the party seeks to recover at law in the name of the trustee, or against the assets in this Court."
[ Bailii ]
 
Brooksbank v Smith [1846] EngR 27 (G); (1846) 4 Y and C Ex 556
1846


Equity

[ Commonlii ]
 
M'Mahon v Burchell (1846) 1 Coop t Cott 457 (47 ER 944); SC 2 Ph 127 (41 ER 889)
1846
CA
Cottenham LC
Equity, Land
Terence M'Mahon had left his house in St Christopher to his seven children as tenants in common. One of them (William) frequently occupied the house, three others occupied it occasionally, and three not at all. The executors of one of the children (Hannah) who had never occupied the house claimed that William was liable to Hannah's estate for a seventh of the rent in respect of his occupation. Held: Mere occupation (in the absence of agreement) would not make one co-owner liable to the others for rent. The house was open to all the tenants in common, William had been in occupation, but there was no exclusion of the other tenants in common: "Where there was neither contract nor exclusion, nor anything received, occupation by one tenant in common created no liability for rent to the other tenants in common."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Barker v Harrison [1846] EngR 533; (1846) 2 Coll 546; (1846) 63 ER 854
16 Apr 1846

Sir James Knight-Bruce V-C
Agency, Equity
A vendor's agent had secretly negotiated a sub-sale of part of the property from the purchaser at an advantageous price. Held: that asset was held on trust for the vendor.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
M'Mohon v Burchell [1846] EngR 760; (1846) 5 Hare 322; (1846) 67 ER 936
5 Jun 1846


Wills and Probate, Landlord and Tenant, Equity

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Tulk v Moxhay; 22-Dec-1848 - (1848) 2 Ph 774; [1848] 1 H and TW 105; [1848] 18 LJ Ch 83; [1848] 13 LTOS 21; [1848] 13 Jur 89; [1848] 41 ER 1143 LC; (1848) 11 Beavan 571; [1848] EWHC Ch J34; [1848] EngR 1005; (1848) 11 Beav 571; (1848) 50 ER 937; [1848] EngR 1059; (1848) 1 H and Tw 105; (1848) 47 ER 1345; [1848] EngR 1065; (1848) 41 ER 1143
 
Attorney General v Brown (1849) 3 Ex 662
1849


Equity

1 Citers


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