- Published on
Errington v Errington and Woods (1951) Court of Appeal
In 1936, E purchased a residence in Newcastle for £750, contributing £250 herself and securing a mortgage for the outstanding £500. The residence was intended for E's son and daughter-in-law, however E retained ownership of the property and was the mortgagor. E entrusted the building society book to his daughter-in-law, instructing her to retain possession of it, and conveyed that the house would be transferred to the son and daughter-in-law upon the mortgage's settlement. The couple resided in the house and remitted a mortgage of 15 shillings weekly, while E covered the rates of 10 shillings per week on their behalf. In 1945, E passed away, bequeathing all his assets to his wife. The son departed from his wife and took up residence with his mother, E's spouse. The plaintiff, E's wife, thereafter claimed custody of the house from the daughter-in-law, who remained residing there with her sister, W. The daughter-in-law was entitled to reside in the residence. E's commitment to convey the property to the couple upon their payment of the mortgage constituted a unilateral contract that remained enforceable by his successor, the plaintiff, upon his demise.
Per Denning LJ:
…the father [E] expressly promised the couple that the property should
belong to them as soon as the mortgage was paid, and impliedly promised
that so long as they paid the instalments to the building society they should
be allowed to remain in possession.
The father’s promise:
…could not be revoked by him once the couple had entered on
performance of the act, but it would cease to bind him if they left it
incomplete and unperformed.
On the other hand, the couple were not bound to pay the mortgage
instalments, even after they had started to do so. (The payments of rates by
E were simply gifts, not made under a contract.
In 1936, E purchased a residence in Newcastle for £750, contributing £250 herself and securing a mortgage for the outstanding £500. The residence was intended for E's son and daughter-in-law, however E retained ownership of the property and was the mortgagor. E entrusted the building society book to his daughter-in-law, instructing her to retain possession of it, and conveyed that the house would be transferred to the son and daughter-in-law upon the mortgage's settlement. The couple resided in the house and remitted a mortgage of 15 shillings weekly, while E covered the rates of 10 shillings per week on their behalf. In 1945, E passed away, bequeathing all his assets to his wife. The son departed from his wife and took up residence with his mother, E's spouse. The plaintiff, E's wife, thereafter claimed custody of the house from the daughter-in-law, who remained residing there with her sister, W. The daughter-in-law was entitled to reside in the residence. E's commitment to convey the property to the couple upon their payment of the mortgage constituted a unilateral contract that remained enforceable by his successor, the plaintiff, upon his demise.
Per Denning LJ:
…the father [E] expressly promised the couple that the property should
belong to them as soon as the mortgage was paid, and impliedly promised
that so long as they paid the instalments to the building society they should
be allowed to remain in possession.
The father’s promise:
…could not be revoked by him once the couple had entered on
performance of the act, but it would cease to bind him if they left it
incomplete and unperformed.
On the other hand, the couple were not bound to pay the mortgage
instalments, even after they had started to do so. (The payments of rates by
E were simply gifts, not made under a contract.
0 Comments