Our offices are open as usual over the Easter break

Re Monolithic Building Co. 1915

297 words (1 pages) Case Summary in Cases

12/10/18 Cases Reference this

Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.

If you would like to view samples of the work produced by our academic writers please click here.

Re Monolithic Building Co. [1915] 1 Ch. 643

Property law – Mortgage – Mortgagor rights

Facts

Monolithic Building Co. was an incorporated company who loaned money to the plaintiff by way of a mortgage. This was not registered under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908 section 93. The company later charged the money by sub-mortgage to a third-party, with notice of the original mortgage, and it was claimed that the original mortgage was void for the fact it had not been registered under the Act. The mortgage was subsequently registered over a year later from it being initially being released to the plaintiff. The trial judge found in favour of the plaintiff and gave the plaintiff the rights to the property under the first mortgage. The decision was subsequently appealed by the defendant.

Issue

The trial court found in favour of the plaintiff on the basis that when the company took the money for the first mortgage, the plaintiff should have had a valid, first mortgage upon the property. The court also found that when the second mortgage was given to another individual, it was expressly subject to the plaintiff’s rights. However, the issue for the court in this case, was to decide how the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, section 93 should be read in line with the circumstances.

Held

The court found in favour of the defendant, allowed his appeal and rejected the decision of the earlier court, which found in favour of the plaintiff. The judges applied a strict definition to the relevant section of the Act, finding that the plaintiff had erred in not registering the mortgage, and therefore lost the rights attributed to this.

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please.

Current Offers