The Law Reports, Chancery Appeal Cases Volume 10; Including Bankruptcy and Lunacy Cases, Before the Lord Chancellor, and the Court of Appeal in Chancery (Paperback)


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. 1875 Excerpt: ...S. 155) is conclusive, shewing that the repeal of the usury laws does not make a hard bargain with an expectant heir reasonable, because in other cases, the usury laws no longer being in force, persons may make hard bargains with persons entitled to property in possession, or entitled to no property at all. I have disposed of the argument that Rhys Beynon was not an expectant heir. I think he was one in every sense of the word. He certainly was a person entitled to a reversion, and if he borrowed, he must have borrowed either on the reversion, or with a view to the reversion being a security. It has never been said a man can be relieved because he happens to be a reversioner, and the money-lender does not know it, but lends him money upon his promissory note at usurious interest. In order to be relieved, he must have been trusted upon the credit of his expectations: Earl of Aylesford v. Morris. In this case there is an actual mortgage; and it is not suggested that without the mortgage Mr. Cook would have mado the advance. The credit went upon the faith of the expectation of the reversion. That is the element, as far as I can see, in all the authorities, and the older authorities are unaffected either by the repeal of the usury laws or by the Sahs of Reversions Act (31 & 32 Vict. c. 4). There appears to me to be no question here about that Act. It was considered in Earl of Aylesford v. Morris to make no difference in the case of a loan, and I do not see how it could make any difference in the case of a loan. What was set aside in the old cases was the loan: Barnardiston v. Lingood (2 Atk. 133; Barn. Ch. R. 337); the doctrine being, that you must not lend on extravagant terms to reversioners or remaindermen, with a view to getting paid out of the reversio...

R1,002

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles10020
Mobicred@R94pm x 12* Mobicred Info
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

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. 1875 Excerpt: ...S. 155) is conclusive, shewing that the repeal of the usury laws does not make a hard bargain with an expectant heir reasonable, because in other cases, the usury laws no longer being in force, persons may make hard bargains with persons entitled to property in possession, or entitled to no property at all. I have disposed of the argument that Rhys Beynon was not an expectant heir. I think he was one in every sense of the word. He certainly was a person entitled to a reversion, and if he borrowed, he must have borrowed either on the reversion, or with a view to the reversion being a security. It has never been said a man can be relieved because he happens to be a reversioner, and the money-lender does not know it, but lends him money upon his promissory note at usurious interest. In order to be relieved, he must have been trusted upon the credit of his expectations: Earl of Aylesford v. Morris. In this case there is an actual mortgage; and it is not suggested that without the mortgage Mr. Cook would have mado the advance. The credit went upon the faith of the expectation of the reversion. That is the element, as far as I can see, in all the authorities, and the older authorities are unaffected either by the repeal of the usury laws or by the Sahs of Reversions Act (31 & 32 Vict. c. 4). There appears to me to be no question here about that Act. It was considered in Earl of Aylesford v. Morris to make no difference in the case of a loan, and I do not see how it could make any difference in the case of a loan. What was set aside in the old cases was the loan: Barnardiston v. Lingood (2 Atk. 133; Barn. Ch. R. 337); the doctrine being, that you must not lend on extravagant terms to reversioners or remaindermen, with a view to getting paid out of the reversio...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

March 2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

March 2012

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 16mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

304

ISBN-13

978-1-130-49788-5

Barcode

9781130497885

Categories

LSN

1-130-49788-7



Trending On Loot