Calverley v Williams. Williams v Calverley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 July 1790 |
| Date | 02 July 1790 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 30 E.R. 306
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
306 CALVEBLBY V. WILLIAMS 1 VES. JUN. 211. calverley v. williams. williams v. galverley. July llth, 1790. Purchaser not entitled to a conveyance of part, though answering the general description in the advertisement of sale, as it was not in the contemplation of either party at the time of the purchase or conveyance ; purchaser being referred to a more particular description, which did not include that part; and the surrender having been made according to that and from his own instructions. The original bill was by Calverley to have a conveyance made to him by the Defendant Williams of seven acres of copyhold land called Cuddington or Beaumont's Pits, part of an estate sold by auction, and purchased by Plaintiff, as being comprehended in the printed advertisement of the sale; which mentioned, and divided into two lots, the lands in the possession of Groombridge, at a rent of £65 a-year, with a clause of surrender at any time on being paid the reasonable value; and these seven acres were actually part of the lands in his possession at that rent. Defendant resisted this claim upon the ground, that he did not intend to include these seven acres, or know that they were part of the lands in the possession of Groombridge ; that they were not included in a schedule, which he called a terrier; and that Plaintiff himself had not included them in the surrender. Calverley having got into possession, the cross bill was to be let into possession. [211] Lord Chancellor [Thurlow]. The original oill is brought, to compel the Defendant to convey by way of surrender seven acres of land, as having been purchased at an auction June 15th 1786. No doubt, if one party thought, he had purchased bona fide, and the other party thought he had not sold, that is a ground to set aside the contract, that neither party may be damaged; as it is impossible to say, one shall be forced to give that price for part only, which he intended to give for the whole, or that the other shall be obliged to sell the whole, for what he intended to be the price of part only. Upon the other hand, if both understood, the whole was to be conveyed, it must be conveyed. But again, if neither understood so, if the buyer did not imagine he was buying, any more than the seller imagined he was selling, this part, then this pretence to have the whole conveyed is as contrary to good faith upon his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Browne v Marquis of Sligo
...136. Hughes v. Overseers of ChathamUNK 5 M. & G. 54. Pain v. Combes 1 De Gex & Jo. 34. Manser v. Back 6 Har. 443. Calverty v. Williams 1 Ves. jun. 210. Jenkinson v. Pepys 1 Ves. 516. Clowes v. Higginson 1 Ves. & B. 524. Heap v. AbbottENR C. P. Coop. 333. CHANCERY REPORTS, BEING A SERIES OF ......
-
Penny v Walker
...for the seller cannot be compelled to sell the whole at a price fixed for a part only. See Calverley v Williams (1790, 1 Ves. 210 and 30 E.R. 306). The difference between the price and the value is great enough to have given the right to a rescission on the ground of laesio See Voet (3.18.5......
-
Okill v Whittaker
...valuable thing than that which the vendors had contracted to sell and the purchaser to purchase. They referred to Calverley v. Williams (1 Ves. jun. 210). [86] Under the civil law, if an urn were sold for silver which was not silver, the contract was void. The Viee-Chancellor observed that,......
-
Connor v Potts
...v. LeonardELR 38 Ch. D. 622. Attorney-General v. LeonardELR 38 Ch. D. 624. Bonham's CaseELR 10 Ch. D. 595. Calverley v. Williams 1 Ves. Jun. 210. Cordingly v. CheesebroughENR 3 Giff. 496. Corley's CaseUNK 23 L. R. Ir. 241. Dyas v. StaffordUNKUNK 7 L. R. Ir. 590; 9 L. R. Ir. 620. Earl of Dur......