His Lorpsur delivered judgment in this case, in which Mr. R. E, WarNewRtonT has appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. H.
Witkrssoy for the defendant, His Loxpsure said—The plaintiffs in this case claim to be acle owners of certain land Jin Shanghai, which was originally mort BSD. Benjamin, since dvoeased, and which gaged to them in the year 1882 by one
land was after the death of Benjamin foreclosed upon by them, and in' respect of which they obtained' from this court a decree of foreclosure dated 23rd Novemb. 1888, The defendant was formerly registered owner of the land, he having towards the end of 1879 transferred it to Benjamin, in whose name it has since been registered, and he now comes forward as the holder of declaration of trust dated 26th December, 1879, in which Benjamin acknowledges him as joint owner of the property. The declaration of trust having been duly reistered at the Land Office of the ansulate is an obstacle in the way of plaintiffs selling the property, and they now seek to compel the defendant to ré- lease the property from all claims on hia Jered that all the interest of the defendant rt, or, as an alternative, to have it or-
under the declaration of trust, or otherwise, may be vested in them, the plaintiffs, defendant denies the right of the plaint to the relief they claim, and in a cross petition alleges that he lias a lien on the property to the extent of Tls, 15,000 for unpaid purchase money, or for such sum on taking an account. may be found to be due from the said B. D. Benjamin to him in respect of the property. The pleadings in the suit are very voluminous, and a great many facts are alleged in them which do not appear to have any material bearing upon the issue. As counsel on both sides finally agreed, the one main question to be decided is whether the defendant has or has not a lien upon the property, and, if any, what is the amount of it, It' is admitted that the plaintiffs in this suit must, so far as the relief they now seek against the defendant is concerned, be taken to be in the same Re'been plaintiff, and it is also admitted sition as Benjan.in would have been had that they had at the time of their becoming mortgagees of the property constructive notice of the declaration of trust. held by the defendant. The facts of the case, 80 far as I need now deal with them, are shortly as follows:—In the year 1879 the defendant, being then owner of the land in question, transferred it in two separate lots to Benjamin for the purpose, as would seem, of enabling Benjamin to raise money upon'it. In the latter half of the same year the defendant and Benjamin agreed that they would enter into joint account operations in many sorts of business, and that the land in question should also be held and worked by them on joint account, the defendant being at once credited in sole account with the agreed value of the land, Tls. 27,730. Benjamin appears to have paid off some considerable sums of money owing on the property by the defendant, especially Tls. 8,000 owing by him upon it to one Lester, and moreover had made himself liable about this period for other sums on account of the defendant, including 80 [liability in trust account for Raplia
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.