1.

Ashby v white
Facts: The plaintiff had the right to vote, but he was denied that right by the defendant. The
plaintiff brought suit for violation of his civil rights and the jury returned a verdict in his favor.
The defendant appealed.
Issue: The issue of this case is whether one party may recover damages when one of his civil
rights is hindered by the action of another.
Judgment: Chief Justice Holt held that a plaintiff ought to be allowed to recover, because the
right to vote is a common law right and thus, an obstruction of that right should give rise to a
cause of action. When the actions of one person serve to hinder the rights of another, a cause
of action may arise.

2. Stickland v Aldridge
Facts: where a person died intestate who owned an estate in fee-simple, leaving sons and
daughters, the eldest son was entitled to the whole of the land to the exclusion of his younger
brothers and sisters.
Issue: The issue of this case is whether younger brothers and sister may recover the possession
of properties.
Judgment: This was unfair, yet no relief was granted by Equity Courts. If the son had induced
his father not to make a will by agreeing to divide the estate with his brothers and sisters, equity
would have interfered and compelled him to carry out his promise, because it would have been
against conscience to allow the son to keep the benefit of a legal estate which he obtained by
reason of his promise. Equity follows the law and even if by analogy law can be followed, it
should be followed.
3. Lodge v National union co. Ltd.
Facts: This is a case in which B had borrowed money from a money lender, M, and B
mortgaged some securities to M for the loan. It turned out that M was not a registered money
lender by law (the Money Lenders Act of England). B sued M for delivery of his securities.
Issue: The issue of this case is whether M is liable to delivery of securities.
Judgment: The benefit of a legal estate which he obtained by reason of his promise. Equity
follows the law and even if by analogy law can be followed, it should be followed.

4. Highwaymen case:
Facts: Everet and Williams were both highwaymen, and entered into a partnership to split the
proceeds from their robberies. For some time, the two engaged in this pursuit on Hounslow
Heath, as well as at Pagshot, Salisbury, Hampstead, and elsewhere.When the proceeds of these
activities were sold, John Everet believed that Joseph Williams had maneuvered himself into
receiving more than his fair share of the profits. For some unknown reason, Everet decided to
take his grievance to the courts for settlement. He hired attorneys and solicitors to sue Williams
in court for the balance he thought due, pleading "for discovery, an account, and general relief"
for the profits made under their partnership.
Issue: The issue of this case is whether Williams discovery, an account, and general relief for
the profits made under their partnership.
Judgment: Court of Exchequer was less than impressed with the idea of being asked to settle
a dispute amongst highwaymen regarding the division of the spoils and considered the Bill
"both scandalous and impertinent". Not only was the case dismissed, but a warrant was issued
for the arrest of the two solicitors who brought the suit forth. Subsequently both solicitors,
William White and William Wreathock, were arrested and brought before the court and, on
December 6, both were fined 50 each. Also on December 6, the attorney who wrote the
original bill bringing the suit to court, Jonathan Collins, was ordered to pay all court costs.

5. Allcard v skinner
Facts: Miss Allcard was introduced by the Revd Mr Nihill to Miss Skinner, a lady superior of
a religious order named "Protestant Sisters of the Poor". She had to observe vows of poverty
and obedience. Three days after becoming a member, Miss Allcard made a will bequeathing
all property to Miss Skinner, and passed on railway stock that she came into possession of in
1872 and 1874. She then claimed the money back after she left the sisterhood.
Issue
Was the claimant acting under buy xanax from usa undue influence as to recover the assets

Decision: Lindley LJ, held that she was unduly influenced but barred by laches from getting
restitution. And in any case she would only have been able to recover as much of the gift as
remained in the defendants hands after some of it had been spent in accordance with her
wishes.

6. Salt v marquess of northamption

Once a mortgage always a mortgage. Held, that if the substance of a transaction is a mortgage
the Court die allows any conditions appropriate to a sale but inappropriate to a mortgage
7. lachemere v lady lachmere
Facts: marriage articles Lord Lechmere covenanted to lay out 30,000 within one year after
marriage in purchase of fee-simple lands in possession with consent of trustees, and settle the
same as therein provided. The covenantor was seised of some lands in fee-simple at the time
of his marriage; and after his marriage he purchased some estates for lives, some reversionary
estates in fee- simple, and after the year, and without the consent of the trustees, some fee-
simple lands in possession. None of these properties were ever settled, but the covenantor
simply died possessed of them, and the question was, whether these lands, or any and which of
them, were to be taken as passing under the settlement by reason of the doctrine of performance,
or whether they went to the heir-at-law.
Decision: Held, (1) That the purchase made before the covenant could not go in performance
of the subsequent covenant, as it could not have been so intended. (2) That the estates for lives,
and reversionary estates in fee simple, purchased after the marriage, could not go in
performance of the covenant, not being fee-simple lands in possession within the meaning of
the covenant. (3) That the purchase of lands in fee simple made after the marriage, though not
purchased within a year after the marriage, or with the consent of the trustees, or settled, must
be intended to have been made in part performance of the covenant to lay out 30,000

8. Sowden v sowden
Facts: a husband covenanted with the trustee of his marriage settlement to pay to them 50,000
to be laid out by them in purchase of land in a particular area D. He, in fact, never paid the sum,
but after marriage purchased the land at D in his own name, for 50,000. He died and could
not bring the land into settlement. Equity courts construed that he purchased land to fulfill his
obligation.
Decision: Satisfaction is the donation of a thing with it is to be taken in extinguishment of some
prior claim of donee. This maxim is helpful where the presumed intention of the testator is to
be found out; where the intention is express the maxim has no application. Equity imputes an
intention to fulfill an obligation.

9. Ewing case:
Facts. Between 1997 and 2001, former police officer Gene Colello received treatment from
David Goldstein. One of reasons for seeking treatment was the depression that Colello was
experiencing after breaking up with his girlfriend and learning that she had become involved
with Keith Ewing. In June 2001, Colello told his father that he was "considering causing harm"
to Ewing. Colello's father relayed this statement to Goldstein. Goldstein encouraged Colello's
voluntary hospitalization, which was done. When learning that Colello was going to be
discharged from the hospital the next day, Goldstein urged the hospital psychiatrist to
reconsider that decision. The hospital discharged Colello and, one day later, he murdered
Ewing and then committed suicide.
Issue: Does Californias three strikes law violate the Eighth Amendments ban on cruel and
unusual punishments, which prohibits sentences that are disproportionate to the crime
committed?
Decision: The court ruled that the case should be heard by the lower court. They determined
that the duty to protect was not sufficiently discharged by initiating involuntary commitment
and could be discharged only by warning the identifiable victims.