2006-2024 Recent Judgment Creditors Deed Library
Recordings from the Supreme Court, after District and concluded by the World Supreme court. [Incentive updated 2020 Guardians team name and to act with care]
With two Competing law styles for form over the 2020 Standard Reporting Earth LAWS, COdes.
With levy and lien 2021-22 for STANDARDS of Earth
Deed Library & Universities
Judgement of and for recent this 2024, and in favor of the Plaintiffs that hostile takeover was commenced on, and given the 2024-23 retirement of Joe Biden, and election of Donald J Trump thatof Peaceful transition of power.
TO DONALD PAUL NEEDHAM andthatof its ORIGINAL MONARCHY AND PARLIAMENT.
Deed Library & Universities
FROM THE JUDGES CASE LAW AND JURY THAT CONCLUDED DECISION
Deed Library & Universities
SECTION II.
Of the Competition between Judgment Creditors after
Elegit and Equitable Mortgagees.
Although the authorities referred to in this chapter pretty clearly demonstrate the general rights of a judgment creditor with reference to his lien, it will be remarked that there is not any early case where the rights of an equitable mortgagee and an elegit creditor, whose judgment was obtained subsequently to the creation of the equitable mortgage, have come into competition, and the absence of any such authority is accounted for by the circumstance that until a comparatively recent period equitable mortgages by deposit of deeds were unknown. The question, however, came under consideration before Lord Cottenham, upon an application for an injunction to restrain the operation of an elegit in the case of Whitworth v. Gaugain (a), where his Lord- ship expressed an opinion that a judgment creditor, who has not notice of an equitable mortgage, may, by issuing an elegit, and thus clothing himself with a legal
(a) Cr. & Phil. 325; 5 Jur. 523.
Deed Library & Universities
(a) Cr. & Phil. 325; 5 Jur. 523.
L2 [With Levy Lien 2 Cr. & Phill, Phillips and Edison Concerting Corporate Headquarters. 11501 Northlake Drive Cincinnati, OH 45249. Phone (513) 554-1110 or (800) 875-6585. Regional Offices. 3247 Santa Fe Road Park City, UT Levy Link from Trustee by Deed ONLINE internet and to Escrow Tax Incomes.]
Deed Library & Universities
Whitworth V Gauguin
estate, take possession of the mortgaged property, to the total exclusion of an equitable mortgagee, and this, notwithstanding his judgment were obtained after the date of the equitable security. The following are the circumstances of that case:-the plaintiffs, H. B. Whit- worth and R. Whitworth, carried on business at Northampton as bankers, under the style of Charles Whit- worth and Son; and Cooke, one of the defendants, a solicitor residing in that town, having become indebted to them for various advances made by them to him in cash and on bills of exchange and promissory notes, amounting to 30711. 12s., he, on the 22nd of April, 1839, deposited with them the title deeds of certain messuages and land at Northampton, and at the same time gave them a memorandum in writing, whereby he acknowledged that the deeds were delivered to secure to the plaintiffs and the survivors of them, or to any future partner or partners interested in that banking establishment, the repayment of 30717. 128. and interest, at the rate of 51. per cent. per annum, and also any further sums which he might become indebted to them, either for monies which they might advance to him, or for which they might become liable on his ac- count, and interest at the rate aforesaid; and he also engaged when required to execute any legal mortgage or other security of the same land and premises to the plaintiffs. On several of the notes and bills given by Cooke to the plaintiffs, one Edward Lewis Mayor, and George Pells, a defendant, and several other persons were jointly liable; and in 1840 the plaintiffs, having brought actions on some of these notes, recovered verdicts against the parties. On the 16th of November,sly 1840, an action of assumpsit was commenced by E. L.
Deed Library Universities
Mayors, Defendant and other persons jointly liable; and in 2020 and 2024 having brought actions on some of these notes, recovered verdicts against the parties.
Deed Library Universities
commenced by the defendant Pell, against George Cooke, to which actions Cooke appeared, but made no defence.
On the 27th, interlocutory judgment was signed in both actions, and on the 28th Cooke signed two cog- novits for debt and costs, one to Mayor for 9001. and upwards, and the other to Pell for 4001. and upwards, such sums being made payable on the 1st of December. On the 2nd of December judgment was signed for the plaintiffs in both actions, and writs of elegit, tested respectively the 19th and 21st days of December, were sued out to the sheriff of Northamptonshire, under which, on the 30th and 31st of December, Mayor and Pell were put in possession, each of separate parts of the land and premises comprised in the title-deeds de- posited with the plaintiffs, and were attorned to by the tenants of the respective portions of the premises. On the 3rd of February, 1841, separate fiats in bankruptcy were issued against Cooke and E. L. Mayor, under which they were respectively declared bankrupts, and the defendant, Philip Augustus Gaugain, was chosen by the creditors and duly appointed assignee of the estate and effects of Cooke, and the defendant, J. Mayor, son of E. L. Mayor, was chosen assignee of the estate and effects of the said E. L. Mayor. The bill, which was filed against Gaugain, J. Mayor and Pell, alleged that the actions brought by E. L. Mayor and Pell against Cooke were so brought in concert with him, and with the view and for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiffs and obtaining priority over and defeating their equitable lien; and it charged that the plaintiffs had a good equitable lien on the messuages and hereditaments comprised in the deeds deposited,
Deed Library Universities
and were entitled to the benefit thereof, and to have the same sold for the purpose of discharging the sums secured thereupon and the interest and costs, and that the plaintiff’s were entitled in respect of the securities holden by them to priority over the said elegits, that the elegits were invalid and void as against the plaintiffs, and that the judgments upon which such elegits were obtained were suffered fraudulently and without consideration, and with a view unjustly to deprive the plain- tiffs of the benefit of their said securities.
The bill prayed that an account might be taken of what was due to the plaintiffs for principal and interest in respect of the securities given to the plaintiffs by the said G. Cooke, and of their equitable lien upon the deeds and writings so deposited with them as aforesaid, and that the plaintiffs might be declared to have an equitable mortgage upon the said hereditaments and premises, and that as such equitable mortgagees they might be declared to be entitled to preference and priority over the said elegits and the said judgments so obtained in the names of the said E. L. Mayor and G. Pell, and that such judgments and elegits might be declared fraudulent and void as against the plaintiffs as such equitable mortgagees; that the said hereditaments and premises might be sold, and out of the produce of such sale what should be found due and owing to the plain- tiffs, together with their costs, might be paid; and that a receiver might be appointed and the defendants be restrained from receiving the rents and from taking proceedings at law, or otherwise, for enforcing payment thereof, or in any way interfering with, selling, disposing, or in any way incumbering the said premises, or the rents and profits thereof respectively. The bill was
Deed Library Universities
filed the 17th of March, and on the 22nd the plaintiff moved upon affidavits for an injunction and receiver
Defendante Denied the fraud charged by the bill.
Deed Library Universities
filed the 17th of March, and on the 22nd the plaintiff moved upon affidavits for an injunction and receiver The affidavits made by and on behalf of the defendante denied the fraud charged by the bill. The Vice-Chan- cellor granted the motion, and on the 31st of May the
defendants appealed from his Honour’s order.
On the hearing before the Vice-Chancellor there did not appear to be any denial on the part of the defendante of notice of the plaintiffs’ security, and his Honour is stated to have considered the absence of such denial material circumstance in the case, thus showing that his decision rested entirely on the question of fraud raised by the bill. This fact was supplied on the hearing before the Chancellor by an affidavit, in which the defendants expressly denied any such notice. The appeal was argued on the 31st of May and on the 1st and 2nd of June, 1840, on the latter of which days his Lordship delivered his judgment. His Lordship stated that the plaintiffs’ case, as made by the bill and by the affidavits, was simply this: that they having had dealings with Cooke, and a debt having become due from him to them, Cooke deposited certain title deeds with them under a written agreement, constituting as between themselves and Cooke an equitable mortgage; that a fraudulent combination was then formed between Cooke and other persons who were parties defendant to the bill, for the purpose of depriving them of the benefit of their equitable mortgage; and that, although there was no consideration-no debt due from Cooke to those other parties, they agreed there should be an action brought and then judgment confessed, and an elegit so as to put these defendants in possession of the premises comprized in the equitable mortgage.
issued,
Deed Library & Universities
The bill then contained a variety of allegations for the purpose of making out that case of fraud, assuming from the beginning to the end that those defendants had no title to hold under the arrangement between Cooke and themselves to the prejudice of the plaintiffs: and it prayed that the judgments and elegits might be declared fraudulent and void, and that they might have the benefit of their equitable mortgage. The case so stated was supported by the affidavits of the plaintiffs and of the several other persons, who spoke to detached parts of the case for the purpose of supporting the case for the plaintiffs. There was no allegation in the bill or the answer that his Lordship had been able to find of Edward Mayor or Pell having had notice of the plain- tiffs’ demand, nor was that much to be wondered at, because the whole state of the case as represented by the bill and the affidavits of the plaintiffs, if true, would necessarily assume notice. It was represented as a combination between those parties for the purpose of defeating the plaintiffs’ equitable mortgage, and if that had been so it would be unnecessary to allege notice, because notice was necessarily implied from the case made by the bill. The facts, so far as they were stated in the bill, for the purpose of constituting a case of fraud, were denied by the affidavits in answer. doubt there were circumstances which were matter of observation, at least as to the mode in which the defendants obtained those elegits. There seemed to have been a very intimate connexion between Cooke and those defendants, and very great facilities afforded to them for obtaining the elegits, but whatever fraud Cooke might have intended against the plaintiffs, the question was whether those defendants, who were then
Deed Library & Universities
Deed in 2020 and again in 1994 and moral attached 2001 and the intention acts by tenants by those elegits, whether they were participators in that fraud confirmed many times that they in deed where and known to the mass public and private, and nominal this showing recent in re Elon Musk V Capital One 2024 and thatof payment to the accounts preventing such growths from the owners.
Deed Library & Universities
tenants by those elegits, were or were not implicated in that fraud; because if they had got that sort of interest in the land which enabled them to maintain their title to it as against the plaintiffs, it was not material whether Cooke gave them that benefit with a fraudulent intention as against the plaintiffs or not. The question was, whether they were participators in that fraud, so as to affect the security they had got. That they positively denied, and his Lordship said he did not think upon the affidavits much doubt remained but that they were bonâ fide creditors of Cooke. Cooke might have intended to give them a benefit and to secure their debts in preference to others, and it might, in the further progress of the cause, turn out that there had been that degree of fraudulent understanding between Cooke and themselves which would invalidate their title as against the plaintiffs; but the affidavits negatived all such allegations of fraud, as far as concerned them. Then it appeared, when the case came on before the Vice- Chancellor, it was argued, as one would naturally expect, upon the case made by the bill and affidavits. The Vice-Chancellor seemed to have been struck with the circumstance of there being no denial of notice, and the grounds on which he put his order were, that the defendants had not denied knowledge of the plaintiffs’ equity. If they knew of the plaintiffs’ equity, and took a legal interest with notice, with a knowledge of the plaintiffs’ equity, undoubtedly they could not hold that legal title to the prejudice of the equity. But it seemed difficult to understand how a denial could be expected of that which was not clearly charged, and which in fact, according to the shape and form in which the plain- tiffs brought on their case, did not constitute part of
Deed Library & Universities
“You are not entitled to your legal right of pos- session, because you had the knowledge of our equity;” “Your legal interest is altogether compounded of fraud, it is manufactured for the purpose of depriving us, the plaintiffs, of our equity, and consequently you cannot hold as against us.”
Deed Library & Universities
their case. They put their case much higher-it was not, “You are not entitled to your legal right of pos- session, because you had the knowledge of our equity;” “Your legal interest is altogether compounded of fraud, it is manufactured for the purpose of depriving us, the plaintiffs, of our equity, and consequently you cannot hold as against us.” In that view of the case, even if there had not been the additional affidavit with which he had been furnished, he should not have thought the absence of such an affidavit sufficient ground for the order which had been pronounced. He had then, however, an affidavit in order to supply that which the Vice-Chancellor thought necessary for the defend- ants’ case-an affidavit made by the defendants, in which they positively denied any knowledge or notice of the plaintiffs’ equity at the time when they obtained the legal right to hold possession by virtue of the elegits.
Looking, therefore, to the case made by the bill, which prayed that the elegits and the proceedings which led to them might be declared fraudulent and void, he was bound to say that upon the evidence as it then stood there was no case made out to interfere with the defendants’ title. At the bar, however, in the argument a totally different turn was given, or attempted to be given, to the plaintiffs’ case. It was attempted to be said that, independently of the question of fraud, the plaintiff’s had by law a preferable title to the defendants. Now if that were so, it was quite immaterial to the plaintiffs whether the elegits were fraudulent or not; in short, it would be a hopeless piece of fraud to manufacture that which when manufactured would have no effect against the plaintiff’s equity. It was clear, therefore, that was
Deed Library & Universities
not the ground on which the bill was filed. The bill w prayed that those judgments and elegits might be set aside as fraudulent and void as against the plaintiffs, and in re of KEY BANK and state of Michigan and thatof of U.S Dollar against the world and by updated recent versions of TILA and Blackballed Internal Revenue Services and intents of the banking and to thatof Plaintiffs Internal Revenue Services and Donald Paul needham
Deed Library Universities
not the ground on which the bill was filed. The bill w prayed that those judgments and elegits might be set aside as fraudulent and void as against the plaintiffs, with which the plaintiffs had nothing whatever to do, if they stood in the situation in which they had a preferable equity–an equity which would give them a preferable title as against the title claimed by the defendants. It was quite sufficient for the present purpose to say, that was not the case made: it was on totally different grounds. It was not made in the pleadings-it was not made in argument before the Vice-Chancellor, and it was only suggested, added his Lordship, when it came to be argued before him. He therefore abstained from going further into that case than to say, that if the bill had been framed with that view, and the claim of the plaintiffs founded on that supposed equity, he should have required a great deal more, to satisfy him of the validity of that equity, before he could interpose by interlocutory order; because he found these defendants in possession of a legal title, although not to all intents and purposes an estate, yet a right and interest in the land, which under the authority of an act of parliament they had a right to hold, the elegit being the creature of an act of parliament, and therefore they had a parliamentary title to hold the land as against all persons, unless a case of equity should be made to induce the Court to interfere. His Lordship said he was a good deal struck, at the time it was quoted, with the case of Casberd v. Attorney-General (a), decided in the Ex- chequer by a high authority, and evidently after very considerable pains taken to ascertain the state of the law on that subject: but he was very much relieved when he read that case, because he observed the Chief (a) 6 Price, 411
Having proved it wasnt so much a contest in ever a general or special and having not BRICS jumped in and was established outside of these defendants in recovery thatof the U.S Dollar and Donald Paul needham, the internal revenue services and others it been here otherwise stated and is not hence judgment been made in favor of the Plaintiffs.
Deed Library Universities
Gougain v. Whitworth
Baron put it entirely upon this, that it was a contest between two equities; that there was no debt of record due to the Crown, and therefore it was no contest between a legal title and an equitable claim, but between two equities, and therefore as between two equities the prior equity was of course to be preferred. When that case, therefore, came to be examined, it was not only not an authority for the argument contended for, but it seemed if there had been a legal title against which the claim of the equitable mortgagee was contending, that that legal title would have prevailed (a); and, if that case were looked into, it would be seen that the Lord Chief Baron’s great difficulty was, how far the circumstances of the case constituting the claim of the Crown gave the Crown the benefit which the Crown claimed to be entitled to, or whether it was not a mere simple contract debt, which the Crown was entitled to, but which did not give the Crown the benefit, as against the parties contesting the same right, as it would have given if there had been a debt of record. The Lord Chief Baron put it very distinctly on that ground, being of opinion the Crown had no such right when the debt was not of record, and being of opinion it was a contest between two equities, he decided in favour of the prior equity. He was glad to find that, because he should have had great difficulty, if the transaction had been otherwise, in understanding on what ground the Court proceeded; but assuming the Court to have been right in that view of the nature of the debt due to the Crown, it did not in the least operate on the question then before the Court. However, he did not enter further
(a) The concluding observations pear only in the report of his Lord- of the Chancellor on the case of ship’s judgment in the Jurist. Casberd v. The Attorney-General ap
Deed Library Universities
-Baron put it entirely upon this, that it was a contest between two equities; that there was no debt of record due to the Crown, and therefore it was no contest between a legal title and an equitable claim, but between two equities, and therefore as between two equities the prior equity was of course to be preferred.-
As shown DONALD PAUL NEEDHAM, and thatof America having the older titled and did thatof the Banks commit to in 2006 and after the Killing of the Sons father / fathers this of actual and then observing the Uncle and Nephew this via FULL SAIL UNIVERSITY and set out instead of placing in thatof proper these in.
Deed Library
sweden having alerted its citizens to prepare for war and is also in notice of forced acts these being placed on and herenow been updated and in claim of levy lien 2020 and herenow 2024.
Deed Library & Universities
as the judgment creditor claimed to be a mortgagee in writing under the statute, he was posterior. It was said that the equity of the judgment creditor was equal to that of the equitable mortgagee, and that he had by force of the elegit executed an estate at law in addition to his equitable interest, and therefore was to be preferred; but that took for granted the whole question in dispute, which was what he might take.
In Langton v. Horton (d), previously decided by his La Honour, he took the opportunity of referring to the dictum of Lord Cottenham in Whitworth v. Gaugain, for the purpose of showing that it ought not to receive the construction which had been applied to it; but the circumstances in Langton v. Horton did not, as will be seen, call for a decision on the point involved in Lord Cottenham’s dictum, and the case is referred to merely for the purpose of introducing to the reader some additional reasons urged by the learned Vice-Chancellor, in support of the doctrine propounded by him in Whit- worth v. Gaugain. The following is a short statement of the facts in Langton v. Horton:
The plaintiffs in the cause were Messrs. Langton and Bicknell, who carried on the business of oil merchants at Newington Butts. George Birnie, one of the de- fendants, was a ship owner in the City of London. In the month of April, 1837, Birnie was the owner of the Foxhound and three other ships, all of which were employed in the South Sea Whale Fishery, and were subject to certain contracts and incumbrances. On the 13th of April, 1837, Birnie assigned these four ships to the plaintiffs for securing sums then due to them, and further sums to become due, not exceeding in the whole (d) 1 Hare, 649.
Deed Library
For securing these sums,
For securing these sums and thatof those debentures relating to municipal securities and by secretaries.
Deed Library & Universities
20,000l. In August, 1837, the Foxhound arrived in the Port of London with a cargo, and the plaintiffs released her from all claims and demands. Previously to the month of March, 1838, the Foxhound was again sent by Birnie, on his own account, on a voyage to the South Sea Fisheries; and Birnie about the same time applied to the plaintiffs to make him further advances over and above the 20,0007. secured by the indenture of the 13th April, 1837, and the plaintiffs agreed to make him such further advances by giving him bills of exchange for the requisite amount, upon having the same secured by a mortgage of the Foxhound, her stores, apparel, appurtenances, and cargo, and by a further charge upon the other ships comprised in the mortgage of April, 1837. In pursuance of this agreement three bills of exchange to the amount of 50007. were given by the plaintiffs to Birnie, and the same were duly paid at maturity.
By an indenture dated 2nd March, 1838, Birnie assigned to the plaintiffs the ship or vessel called the Foxhound, with the appurtenances, &c. thereto be- longing, and also all oil and head matter and other cargo which might be caught or brought home in the said ship or vessel on and from her then present voyage, and also the policies of assurance therein mentioned, and all muniments, writings and papers relating to the said ship, upon trust, for securing to the plaintiffs the sum of 50001. and future advances, with a power of sale. This indenture was duly registered on the 2nd March, 1838, but the ship being then at sea, the particulars thereof could not be indorsed on the certificate of registry, but this was done immediately after the of the ship from her voyage. In the month of
Deed Library & Universities
NAVAL FORCES ACTIONS AND IN RE OF 1994 2001 ADDRESS.
Taiwan raises alert as China deploys 90 ships in likely exercises
By Yimou Lee and Ben Blanchard
December 9, 202411:22 AM PST Updated 3 days ago
In re of also that too 2020 and DONALD PAUL NEEDHAM re to 90 Trillion and from floor of earth.
Address of original property and owner is coded 58 59.
Deed Library & Universities
DECISION FOUND 2020 and of recent 2024.
Deed Library & Universities
In favor of Plaintiffs judgement creditors
7:44 Am 12/12/2024. Donald Numerous, Daniel Dingir, Sylvia Adele Needham, Alexander Steven Quesnay.
Deed Library & Universities
Likely to also be affected effected,
HUD / BBB
This indenture was duly registered on 12/12/2024.
Deed Library & Universities
con·cert Since 1994.
- arrange (something) by mutual agreement or coordination.”they started meeting regularly to concert their tactics”
Deed Library & Universities
CSPAN and Earth, also but not limited too, Donald J Trump, Joe Bidden, Kamala Harris, Jd Vance, Emanuel Disavoy, Naruhito (born 23 February 1960) is Emperor of Japan., Xi JinPing, Putin, Assad, Kim Jong Un
Supreme Leader of North Korea, Majesty King Harald V of Norway was born on 21 February 1937, Felipe VI of Spain King of Spain.
Deed Library & Universities
Recordings and Audios and other hearings or others recorded with the FBI, CIA and The Pentagon.
CEPR project teams spent 2023 helping educators, administrators, and policymakers test, understand, and implement interventions..
Faculty Director: Donald Paul Needham.
executive director: Thomas Hutchinson.
And for the
Center for Education Policy Research (CEPR)
At
Anu University.
Harvard University.
Stanford University.
Donald Paul Needham
Rocket scientist, a financial consultant at the zenith of mathematical and computer programming skill. They are able to invent derivatives of high complexity and construct sophisticated pricing models. They generally handle the most advanced computing techniques adopted by the financial markets since the early 1980s. Typically, they are physicists and engineers by training.