|
Tacking is a legal concept arising under the common law relating to competing priorities between two or more security interests arising over the same asset. The concept is best illustrated by way of example. # Bank A lends a first advance to the borrower, which is secured by a mortgage over the borrower's property. The mortgage is expressed to secure this advance and any future advances. # Bank B subsequently lends more money to the borrower and takes a second ranking mortgage over the same property. # Bank A then subsequently lends a second advance to the borrower, relying on its original mortgage. Bank A will always have a first priority claim against the property for the full amount of its first advance. But it will be able to claim against the property in priority to Bank B with respect to its second advance only if it is permitted to ''tack'' the second advance to the mortgage that was taken at the time the first advance was made. If Bank A is not permitted to tack the second advance, then Bank B's claim in respect of the sums that it lent will have priority over Bank A's claims with respect to the second advance. In American jurisprudence, ''Black's Law Dictionary'' defines tacking in slightly narrower terms: Separately, in the definition of ''tabula in naufragio'', ''Black's'' comments: ==The common law rules== The first case which approached the position in relation to competing mortgagees was ''Gordon v Graham''. During the nineteenth century, its authority came to be doubted. It was questioned whether it had been correctly reported and, even if correctly reported, whether it correctly stated the law. The matter subsequently came before the House of Lords in ''Hopkinson v Rolt''. In the case, the borrower entered into a mortgage over his land which was expressed to "secure the sums due and which shall from time to time become due" to the bank. Later, the borrower granted a second mortgage in favour of another creditor. Notice of the second mortgage was given to the bank. The borrower was later declared bankrupt, and a dispute arose as to the priority of the bank with respect to advances which were made under the first mortgage after it had received notice of the second mortgage. The three law lords who heard the case were divided, with a majority favouring priority for the second mortgagee. Lord Campbell, the Lord Chancellor (with whom Lord Chelmsford agreed), opined: The dissenting judge, Lord Cranworth, was in favour of upholding the rule in ''Gordon v Graham'' as it was reported. He expressed his view in a dissenting opinion: 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Tacking (law)」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|