228 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
In 1875 Mathew mortgaged his share to Dennis Pepper to secure a payment of £ 500. Banks acted as the Solicitor. The mortgage to Dennis Pepper did not mention the previous mortgage to William Drake, Subsequently a notice of this transaction was given to the Trustee.
Drake took out a summons for payment of his mortgage debt due from Mathew out of the funds in the hands of the Trustee in priority to Pepper’s claim. 1884, 26 Ch. D. 482
Pepper’s contention was that, he had no notice of Drake’s claim—Mathew not having mentioned it in his deed of mortgage.
It was replied by Drake that Pepper had notice because Banks, the Solicitor who acted as his agent knew of Mathews mortgage to Drake.
That Banks had notice, it was not denied. That Banks was the agent of Pepper was not denied. But the question was whether notice to Banks can be held to be notice to Pepper.
Held : No—p. 677.
Reasons. The knowledge of Banks did not arise in the course of the transaction with Pepper in 1875. Pepper could not be said to have any notice.
- Pepper’s claim was allowed.
III. Notice to agent will not be imputed to the purchaser when the agent is shown to have intended a fraud on the principal which would require the suppression of his knowledge and not communicate it to the Principal.
(1880) 15 Ch. D. 639 Cane vs. Cave.
(1428) ACI—Houghton & Co vs. Nothard)
II. Where an equitable right has come into being subsequently to the acquisition of a legal right.
- Leading case on the question is Northern countries of England Fire Insurance Co. vs. Whipp.
1884 26 Ch.D.482