Kelly v. Imperial Loan & Investment Co., , 11 S.C.R. 516 (1885)

Supreme Court of Canada, Supreme Court of Canada (November 16, 1885)


Permanent Link: http://ca.vlex.com/vid/kelly-v-imperial-loan-investment-37652716
Id. vLex: VLEX-37652716

Acceda a este documento
y pruebe vLex GRATIS durante 3 días

Sponsored Ads:


Extract:

Kelly v. Imperial Loan & Investment Co., , 11 S.C.R. 516 (1885)

Supreme Court of Canada

Kelly v. Imperial Loan & Investment Co., 11 S.C.R. 516

Date: 1885-11-16

William Kelly (Plaintiff) Appellant;

and

The Imperial Loan and Investment Company of Canada (Limited) and William Damer (Defendants) Respondents.

1885: March 28; 1885: November 16.

Present: Sir W.J. Ritchie C.J. and Strong, Fournier, Henry and Taschereau J.J.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

Mortgagor and mortgagee-Assignment of equity of redemption in trust-Re-conveyance by trustee-Foreclosure against trustee-Subsequent sale-Power of sale in mortgage-Exercise of by deed after foreclosure-Recitals in deed.

K. gave a mortgage of leasehold premises to the Imperial Loan and Investment Co., with a covenant authorizing the company to sell the premises on default, with or without notice to mortgagor, and either at public or private sale. The mortgage conveyed the unexpired portion of the current term, and "every renewed term" K., shortly after giving the mortgage, conveyed the equity of redemption in the mortgaged premises to one O'S. for a nominal consideration, and in trust to carry out certain negotiations for K., who then left the country and was absent for several years. During his absence, the lease of the ground mortgaged to the company expired, and was renewed in the name of O'S.

Default having been made in the payment of interest under the mortgage, a suit was brought against O'S. for foreclosure, the mortgagees having knowledge of his want of interest in the premises. Prior to such suit, O'S., fearing that such proceedings would be taken against him, had executed a deed of re-conveyance of the equity of redemption to K., but such deed was never delivered.

O'S. then filed an answer and a disclaimer of interest in such suit, but he was afterwards persuaded by the mortgagees to withdraw the same, and consent to a decree, and a final order of foreclosure was made against him. Pursuant to this order the company subsequently sold the mortgaged premises to the defendant D. for a sum less than the amount due under the mortgage; the deed to D. recit...



Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from Canada including:

  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • Legislation
  • News and Business

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access



If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here

Sponsored Ads:


Other documents:
Austin v The Queen [1985] 2 S.C.R 285 1985 | Adult Leisure Group Shaarey Zedek Synagogue Meets April 20 Noon | Volunteers Race to School s Rescue | lotteries | Vision Partners, naamloze vennootschap, Sint-Pietersvliet 3, bus 2, 2000 Antwerpen BTW 447.962.925 RPR Antwerpen De aandeelhoude... | Par valsts īpašuma objektu nodošanu privatizācijai | Commissions de probation instituees en vertu de l article 10 de la loi du 29 juin 1964 con... | Institut national d assurance maladie-invalidite Personnel - Fonction superieure de directeur general Par arrete royal du 29 avril 200... | Ordinanze Ordinaria nº 3616 of Consiglio di Stato of July 13 2007 | Arrete du 30 avril 1990 relatif aux immobilisations de l union des groupements d achats publics | Arrete du 2 decembre 2002 relatif au budget pour 2002 de l agence regionale de l hospitalisation de la Reunion