The Express.
London, England, 1861-03-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(THIS DAY.)

EQUITY COURT.
(Before Vice-Cheeeellor Sir W. P. Woad.)
OTACKHOOKE V. MP COUNTEBB or 3EB6ET.—DINPOerre OP

IDISZDH WITH BANISH/W.
The Vice-Chancellor gave judgment in this ease, which
raised a question of some interest to the commercial world,
inasmuch as it touches upon the security of equitable mort-
gages by deposit to • considerable extent. His Honour
commenced his judgment by stating that Mrs. Stackhouse
was, prior to her rnarriege, the owner of a sum of 1,000/.,
which she entrusted to her brother-ice-law, Buller, en
attorney, to invest upon mortgage for her. Buller invested
the amount, together with manes the property of his wife,
upon the mortgage of certain real estate belong*. to a
r. Cox at 5 per cent. interest, the mortgaged estate being
conveyed to Buller as mortgagee. Upon the completion of
this transaction, Buller wrote a letter to Mrs. Stackhouse,
informing her how her money had been invested, that it
had been invested together with money belonging to her
sister, and that such investment had been taken in Buller's
name. At this stage his Honour was of opinion that there
was a clear declaration of trust by Buller m favour of MN.
Stackhouee. Some time after this, in the year 1854,
Buller deposited the deeds relating to prosecutrix's pro.
party, including the mortgage to himself, with Messrs.
Child, the bankers, who were defendante in the present
snit, to secure a sum due to or advanced by him. Childs
had no knowledge or notice that Buller was not what on
the tam of the deeds he appeared to be, the boot fide bet..
ficial owner of the mortgage security. The mortgagor had
since paid off the mortgage, and the question was
who was entitled to the money, the claimants
being Mrs. Stackhouse, on the one hand, and on
the other Messrs. Child. If there were no other facts
in the case than those already stated, it was the Vice-Chan.
minor's opinion that the question to be decided between
Mrs. Stackhouse and the Childs would be one admitting of
an easy solution. Union some negligence could be shown on
Mrs. Stackhouse's part, she was undoubtedly entitled to
the money secured by the mortgage. Both Mrs. Stackhouse
and Messrs. Child were equitably entitled, only neither of
their interests were clothed with the legal estate, and hence,
freed or negligence wanting, the maxim " qui prior est
tempore prior est jute" applied. Fraud was not suggested
in the present case on Mrs. Stackhowee's part, but it had
been said it placing in Bullet's
of power the means of com-
mitting fraud, there she was guilty negligence. This
point, however, was not in his Honour's view made
out ; Buller was Mrs, Stackhome's trustee ; she
had • right, as every one bad • right, to
avail herself of the machinery of a trustee for the
investment of her monies. In this case there was an
especial reason for her so doing, for the money was in.
vested as one sum with other money to which she was not
entitled. There was not only a right in Mrs. Stackhouse to
take the course which she bait!, but the course taken by her
was sot an unusual, indeed, not an uncommon one. Stinted
money were frequently lent on mortgage which were the
aggregate of smaller amounts belonging to different persons,
asd in such oases the mortgagee were almost as frequently
taken in the name of a trustee. And however the declare-
time of trust were made in Rich a case, they were
certain, in all well-considered transactions, to be
made iu such& way that no notice of the trust would appear
on the title. Hence, so fur as the facts stood upon the bare
deposit of the title deeds, Mrs. Blockhouse was entitled to
recover. The question in this ?SAO did not stand there, but
was complicated in part by the frame of the suit, and is
part by the steps which had been taken by the
different parties; since its commencement. His
Honour entered minutely into these circumstances,
which were of no public interest, and, although giving rise
to some difficult questions of law, were of such specialty as
to he neither interesting sot instructive to the general
reader. After going into these details, and referring to
some decisions bearing upon the complications to
which they gave rise, his Honour came to the
conclusion that nothing had been done by Mrs.
Stackhouse sufficient to take from her her priority,
and that, therefore, she was entitled to recover, but he con-
sidered that the case had so varied from its original
simplicity by the steps which had been taken, that no cods
should he given on either side.
Mr. Bolt, Mr. Roupell, and Mr. Sbomberg appeared for
the parties.