Colby v Gadsden
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 1865 |
| Date | 10 March 1865 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 695
ROLLS COURT
S. C. on appeal, 17 L. T. 97; 15 W. R. 1185.
[416] colby v. gadsden. March 6, 7, 10, 1865. [S. C. on appeal, 17 L. T. 97; 15 W. R. 1185.] A delay from May to December in filing a bill for specific performance held not sufficient to deprive a vendor of his right to have the contract enforced. A purchaser was let into the receipt of the rents before completion and without payment of his purchase-money. Great delay having occurred, and no payment having been made to the vendor, he gave notice to the tenants and prevented any further receipt of the rents by the purchaser. Held, that thia did not deprive the vendor of his right to have the contract specifically performed. KnatMull v. Grueber (3 Mer. 124) distinguished. Property was sold which was represented as standing on a fine vein of anthracite coal: Held, that the doctrine of " caveat emptor" applied, and that it was the business of the purchaser to inquire as to the extent to which the coal had already been worked. 696 COLBY V. GADSDEN 84 BEAV. 417. This was a suit, instituted by a vendor against the purchaser, for the specific performance of a contract for the purchase of a real estate. The defence was, first, that the Plaintiff was barred by his delay in instituting the suit; secondly, that the Plaintiff, having put the Defendant into possession, had, by afterwards resuming it, abandoned the contract; thirdly, that a schoolhouse had been built on a part of the property given by the Plaintiff for that purpose, and which fact ought to have been stated ; and, fourthly, that a vein of coal, stated in the particulars of sale to exist on the property, had been considerably exhausted by working. Mr. Southgate and Mr. Babington, for the Plaintiff, cited Macbryde v. Weekes (22 Beav. 533); Watson v. Reid, (1 Russ. & Myl. 236); Stmthcomb v. The. Bishop of Exeter (6 Hare, 213); Dyer v. Hargrove (10 Ves. 505); Eigway v. tineyd (1 Kay, 627); Haywood v. Ctrpe (25 Beav. 140); Sugden's Vendors (p. 212 (14th edit.) ). Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Ward, for the Defendants, cited [417] Knatclihill v. Grueber (3 Mer. 124); Hiygins v. Sameh (2 John. & Hem. 460); Moxey v. Bif/woud (10 Jur. 597). Mr. Southgate, in reply. March 10. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. This is a suit, by a vendor against a purchaser, for the specific performance of a contract to buy an estate called Colby Lodge, near Tenby, in Pembrokeshire. The contract is admitted ; the defence set up by the Defendant consists of four particulars. The first is that the time which has elapsed before the bill was filed constitutes a bar to the Plaintiff's recovering in this suit. Upon this subject the dates, which it is important to refer to, are as follows :-the contract for the sale of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial