Mortgage Priorities
In 1651, Sir Francis Drake made the Plaintiff a Security out of the Manor and Rectory of Waltham upon Thames. Afterwards in 1656, Drake made the Defendant a Security for Money out of the Rectory only (the Defendant having no Notice then of the Plaintiff’s Security which was for Money also). Afterwards tha Defendant hearing of the Plaintiffs Security, buys in a Security precedent to the Plaintiff’s which one Beddingfield had both upon the Manor and Rectory.
1. Question was, ‘Whether the Plaintiff should be admitted to redeem Beddingfield’s Security without paying off what was due to Skipwith? And it was ruled he should not. Vide Marsh and Lee’s Case.
2. Question was, Whether inasmuch as the Defendant’s Security was only out of the Rectory, and the Security he bought in from Beddingfield was of both the Manor and Rectory, the Defendant should make Use of Beddingfield’s Security as to the Manor after that by the Profits of the Manor and Rectory Beddingfield’s Debt was satisfied ? And whether then the Plaintiff should not then be admitted to enjoy the Manor, his Security being as well of the Manor as the Rectory, and the Defendant to hold only the Rectory till he was satisfied.
Wyld and Twisden were of Opinion, That after Skipwith had received what was due on Beddingfield’s Security, he should receive no more Profits of the Manor, but the Plaintiff to be let in to receive them, and the Defendant only to make use of Beddingfield’s Security, as to the Rectory, to protect his Security of the Rectory. But it was resolved and ruled, that the Defensant should hold both the Manor and Rectory against the Plaintiff, till all due to him on both Securities was paid him. Quaere tamen.
Wyld, Twisden JJ
[1671] EngR 9, (1671) 3 Rep Ch 67, (1671) 21 ER 731 (A)
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Sir Ralph Bovey v Skipwith 25-May-1671
. .
Cited – Szepietowski v The National Crime Agency SC 23-Oct-2013
S owned several propertie in charge to the bank, but the Agency said that each had been acquired with the proceeds of criminal activity. The parties had settled the claim by the grant of a second charge in favour of the Agency. However when that . .
See Also – Boeve v Skipwith 1678
The Bill is a Supplemental Bill, to have a further Discovery from the Defendant by Way of Evidence, for the better clearing the Matters depending on the Account, which the Defendant hath not answered in the former Cause.
The Plaintiff pleaded . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Equity
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.406423