The mere fact of a sub-mortgage did not prevent the principal mortgagee from exercising his rights under the principal mortgage. ‘The fact was that the legal estate in the term of 3,000 years still remained in the head mortgagee, notwithstanding that he had created out of it a sub-demise for a shorter period. There remained a nominal reversion of one day which was in the head mortgagee. The sub-mortgagee had a lesser estate carved out of the head mortgagee’s estate. He [Buckley J] saw no reason in these circumstances why the head mortgagee ought not to be permitted to exercise his rights in respect of the legal estate vested in him to obtain possession of the property. He saw nothing which suggested that Parliament intended any other result.’
Judges:
Buckley J
Citations:
(1967) 203 EG 29
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Four-Maids Ltd v Dudley Marshall (Properties) Ltd 1957
A mortgagee may under common law go into possession before the ink is dry on the mortgage unless there is something in the contract, express or by implication, whereby he has contracted himself out of that right. He has the right because he has a . .
Cited by:
Approved – Credit and Mercantile Plc v Feliciangela Marks CA 14-May-2004
The defendant had charged her home to the claimant and fallen into arrears. There was a sub-charge executed on the same day in favour of the Bank of Scotland (BOS) under which the claimant agreed to repay to BOS the amount it owed to them.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.197901
