Baxter v Conolly
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 July 1820 |
| Date | 13 July 1820 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 37 E.R. 487
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Coslake v. Till, 1826, 1 Russ. 378; Thornbury v. Bevill, 1842, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 560.
baxter v. conolly. July 13, 1820. [See Coslake v. Till, 1826, 1 Riiss. 378; Thornbury v. Bevill, 1842, 1 Y. & C. 0. C. 560.] A person agreeing to purchase the right and interest of another, under a contract for a lease, with full notice of the nature of it, cannot object to the payment of the consideration, either on the ground that such contract is not binding on the other party to it, or for want of title. The Court will not execute a contract for the sale of a good will, but will leave the parties to law. In the year 1796, an agreement was entered into between the agents of the Duke of Bedford and Henry Scrimshaw, for the grant to the latter of a piece of ground, intended to form the south-west side of Tavistock Square, on a building lease. The term was to be 99 years, at a rent of a peppercorn for the three first years, and 42 for the remainder of the time. A proposal for the lease, specifying the terms and the building conditions, was inscribed in a book kept by the Duke's agents at their office, and the following memorandum was signed by Scrimshaw at the foot of it. 27th July 179G, the above proposal agreed to this day by me, Henry ScrimsJiaw." In May 1800, Scrimshaw agrec.d to assign his interest in the premises to the Defendant, who, in the year 1805, no buildings having been commenced, agreed to sell it to the Plaintiff ; on that occasion the following memorandum of agreement was drawn up and signed by the Plaintiff. [577] Memorandum. L, the underwritten Samuel Baxter, do hereby agree with diaries Canolly, Esquire, in consideration of his giving up to me all his right and interest of and in 140 feet of ground fronting Tavistock Square, by a depth of 80 feet, forming the corner of the said square, and of an intended street to be called 'New 488 BAXTER V. CONOLLY 1JAC. & W. 578. Frances Street, which ground was originally taken, by Mr. Henry Scrimshaw, of the Duke of Bedford, at the yearly rent of 42, under conditions for building thereon, &c., since vested in said Charles Conolly, to fulfill, perform, and keep the terms and conditions mentioned in the memorandum-book kept at the Duke of Bedford's office for that purpose, in the way that is usual by persons taking ground there for building, and according to the rules of the said office; and also to well and effectually secure to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Darbey v Whitaker and Another
...make a decree that it cannot enforce.(l) They referred to Coslake v. Till (1 Euss. 376); DaUn v. Cope (2 Euss. 170); Baxter v. Conolly (1 Jac. & W. 576); Milnes v. Gery (14 Yes. 400); Blundell v. Brettargh (17 Ves. 232); Gregory v. MigMl (18 Ves. 328). ; Mr, Baily, in reply. . [139] the vic......
-
Leathem v Allen
...and ALLEN. Wood v. machuENR 5 Hare, 158. Freme v. WrightUNK 4 Mad. 364. Wilmot v. WilkinsonENR 6 B. & C. 506. Baxter v. ConollyENR 1 Jac. & W. 576. Spratt v. JefferyENR 10 B. & C. 249. Mortlock v. Buller 10 Ves. 306; 13 Ves. 77. Spunner v. WalshUNK 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 386; S. C. 11 Ibid, 597. V......