Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies.
If you would like to view other samples of the academic work produced by our writers, please click here.
Russel v Russel (1783) 1 Bro CC 269
Depositing title deeds raised presumption of equitable mortgage.
A borrower deposited the title deeds to the leasehold with the plaintiff in order that he might obtain a loan from the plaintiff. When the borrower became bankrupt, the plaintiff brought an action before the Court of Chancery in order that he might sell the leasehold estate.
The defendants argued that the plaintiff’s case was against the law, as it amounted to creating a legal charge without writing, which was against the 4th clause of the Statute of Frauds at that time. The main issue for the court was whether it could be said that the lease had been deposited with the plaintiff as security for the loan that had been advanced to the borrower.
The court found for the plaintiffs. Lord Loughborough stated that the lease was valuable consideration in exchange for the loan and that, therefore, this was a case of a contract which had been performed on both sides and the court would supply the necessary formalities. Ashurst, Lord Commissioner stated that this depended, however, on the terms on which the lease was deposited. A jury had found that on the evidence the lease was indeed deposited as a security with the plaintiff. Consequently, the deposit of the title deeds entitled the holder of the deeds to have a charge over the leasehold land, even though there had been no express agreement to this effect. Depositing title deeds with the lender raised a presumption that there was an intention to create a mortgage.
Related ServicesView 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: