• Open Daily: 10am - 10pm
    Alley-side Pickup: 10am - 7pm

    3038 Hennepin Ave Minneapolis, MN
    612-822-4611

Open Daily: 10am - 10pm | Alley-side Pickup: 10am - 7pm
3038 Hennepin Ave Minneapolis, MN
612-822-4611
Cases Argued and Determined in the High Court of Chancery (Volume 2); In the Time of Lord Chancellor Hardwicke, from the Year 1746-7 to 1755 with Tabl

Cases Argued and Determined in the High Court of Chancery (Volume 2); In the Time of Lord Chancellor Hardwicke, from the Year 1746-7 to 1755 with Tabl

Paperback

Currently unavailable to order

ISBN10: 1151172073
ISBN13: 9781151172075
Publisher: General Books
Pages: 336
Weight: 1.32
Height: 0.70 Width: 7.44 Depth: 9.69
Language: English
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1788. Excerpt: ... fore judgment, that equity is got, which always is allowed; and the legal estate is such, as can be tacked to it. In Lord Brijlol v. Hungersord there was a report, and therelore probably a final decree. The plaintiff will have the Ame justice to have this done now, as when the decree was made; at which time if he had got it in, there is no doubt; and it is right to have an inquiry made on a new fact: but he could not bring a bill of review, as that would be praying to have that part leversed, which the plaintiff now desires to stand, that priority may prevail. SuppoQ: articles for a purchase; a decree to see whether defendant can make a good title: if he can at any time before the report, it will be good. 2 Will. 630. The law looks on these things to be at the time, when judgment is finally to be given; and then the plaintiff apprehends, he will have' a priority; from which he is not to be barred. Lord Chancellor. Two questions come before the court by this demurrer. First, whether the plaintiff has that equity, he insists on by his bill? Next, supposing he has, whether he has pursued a proper remedy? The demurrer goes not to the whole bill; so that the whole matter demurred to is not the plaintiff's having satisfaction out of the estate upon the judgment, of which he has taken an assignment; but to that particular point of satisfaction, the preference he claims, to have the judgment tacked to his mortgage of 1726, so as to give that a preference in point of payment; and upon that this question arises. As to the equity of this court, that a third incumbrancer having taken his security or mortgage without notice of the second inciimhrance, and then being puisny taking in the first incumbrance, shall squeeze out and have satisfaction before the second, that...