Burnell v Brown
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 February 1820 |
| Date | 07 February 1820 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 37 E.R. 339
BEFORE THE LORD CHIEF BARON AND MASTER COX. FOR THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS.
See Edwardson v. Marjoribanks, 1860, 7 H. L. C. 810.
burnell vt brown. (Before The Lord Chief Baron and Master Cox. for the Master of the Rolls.) Rolls. Feb. 1, 7, 1820. [See lEdu'ardson v. Marjoribanks, 1800, 7 H. L. C. 810.] If a purchaser after the delivery of the abstract, on the face of which, part of the estate appears to be subject to a right of sporting, not mentioned in the particulars of sale, enters into possession, he waives that objection. The objection having been waived, an offer of compensation made by a clerk of the vendor's solicitor, without express authority, is of no effect. Purchaser charged with 5 per cent, interest on the purchase money unpaid. This was a suit to compel the completion of the purchase of an estate, sold to the Defendant by auction on the 14th September 1812. The Defendant admitted the agreement, but insisted on having a deduction made from the stipulated price, as a compensation for a right of shooting, hunting, and hawking, [169] which had been reserved over a part of the premises. The reservation was not mentioned in the particulars or conditions of sale, and the Defendant stated in his answer that he was induced to purchase the estate, which was contiguous to one of his own, chiefly for the sake of the game. A deposit of ten per cent, was paid soon after the sale \ the remainder of the purchase money, according to one of the conditions, was to be paid on the 25th April following, at which time possession was to be given. It appeared that in January 1813, the abstract was delivered, which stated the-reservation in question. In the month of April following the Defendant, upon his own request, was let into possession. Several letters passed between the Plaintiff and Defendant and their solicitors, and the greater part of the purchase money was paid, without any objection being made to the completion of the purchase, on the ground of the reservation, till October in the same year, when the Defendant's solicitor claimed to have some compensation made for it. A clerk of the Plaintiff's solicitor, in answer to the letter containing this claim, said that a reasonable compensation would be allowed : this, however, was done without the concurrence of the Plaintiff, who, upon its coming to his knowledge, refused his assent. The clerk being examined in the cause, admitted that he had no express authority from the Plaintiff or his solicitor, to accede to the Defendant's demand. The conveyance had been delayed for some time by a difficulty about the description of the parcels, and afterwards by the necessity of levying a fine of part of the premises. The Plaintiff's solicitor had, after the Defendant was in possession, furnished him with additional papers, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v The Marquis of Conyngham
...STEWART and THE MARQUIS OF CONYNGHAM. Martin v. CotterUNK 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 351. Burnell v. BrownENR 1 Jac. & W. 168. Seaman v. Vawdrey 16 Ves. 390. Barton v. Lord Downes Fl. & K. 505. Larkin v. Lord RosseUNK 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 70. Lyddal v. WestonENR 2 Atk. 19. Pope v. Garland 4 Y. & Col. Exch. ......
-
Vignolles v Bowen
...VIGNOLLES and BOWEN. Burnell v. BrownENR1 Jac. & W. 168. flight v. BoothENR 1 Bing. N. C. 370. Dykes v. BlakeENR 4 Bing. N. C. 463. Seaman v. Vawdry 16 Ves. 390. Waring v. Hoggart Ry. & M. 39. Bessonet v. RobinsENR Sau. & Sc. 142. Hall v. Smith 14 Ves. 426. Martin v. CotterUNK 9 Ir. Eq. Rep......
-
Westmacott v Robins
...such that the Plaintiff might have originally rescinded the agreement; but the right to do so may be lost by waiver; Burnett v. Jirawn (1 Jac. & W. 168). Here the Plaintiff's have waived the right by the offer in the prayer of their original bill to take the property without compensation if......
-
Young v Halahan
...433. Holmes v. PowellENR 8 De G. M. & G. 572. Allen v. AnthonyENR 1 Mer. 282. Harris v. PepperellELR L. R. 5 Eq. 1. Burnell v. BrownENR 1 Jac. & W. 168. Wright v. GoffENR 22 Beav. 207. Earl of Bradford v. Earl of RomneyENR 30 Beav. 431. Shackleton v. SutcliffeENR 1 De G. & Sm. 609. Torrance......