Butler v Rice
| Butler v Rice | |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court |
| Citation(s) | [1910] 2 Ch 277 |
| Keywords | |
| Expense of the claimant | |
Butler v Rice [1910] 2 Ch 277 is an English unjust enrichment law case, concerning to what extent enrichment of the defendant must be at the expense of the claimant.
Facts
Mrs Rice owned a leasehold in Bristol and a house in Cardiff, over which a bank secured £450 plus interest. With Mrs Rice unknowing, Mr Rice did a deal with Mr Butler to borrow £450 to pay off the mortgage. Mr Butler did not know about the Cardiff property, and agreed to have a mortgage on the Bristol house for £300 and a guarantee of £150 from the Rice’s solicitor who was to hold the deeds. The solicitor held the deeds. Mrs Rice refused to execute the mortgage. So Mr Butler sued to get a declaration that he could have the Bristol house mortgage, plus interest.
Judgment
Warrington J held that Mr Butler was intended to have the charge. Mrs Rice, as owner of the property had not requested the payment, but her lack of knowledge was immaterial, and the fact he intended a different security did not matter.