Collard v Roe
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 November 1859 |
| Date | 22 November 1859 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 45 E.R. 204
BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD CAMPBELL AND THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. 27 L. J. Ch. 295; 4 Jur. (N. S.), 431; 6 W. R. 348.
[525] collard v. roe. Before the Lord Chancellor Lord Campbell and the Lords Justices. July 2, 9, 1859. [S. C. 27 L. J. Ch. 295 ; 4 Jur. (N. H.), 431 ; 6 W. It. 348.] A vendor being entitled under a limitation to uses to bar dower, without a power of appointment, the purchaser insisted on the concurrence of the dower trustee. The trustee being abroad, the vendor filed a bill to enforce specific performance, without his being a party to the conveyance. The Vice-Chancellor held, that the objection was well founded, and made a decree for specific performance, with an order vesting the estate of the dower trustee in the purchaser upon the execution of the conveyance by the vendor ; but considering the objection, though tenable, to be frivolous and vexatious, he gave no costs to either party. Held, on appeal by the purchaser, that the objection was frivolous and vexatious, and ought not to have been insisted on ; and that costs ought not to be given to tho purchaser. Whether it was a tenable objection, quiere. This was an appeal by the executors of a purchaser from part of a decree for specific performance and from an order on further consideration. The only question which gave rise to the suit was one of conveyance, namely, whether the concurrence of a dower trustee was requisite. By an indenture dated the 20th of December 1841, the property in question was limited to the Plaintiff and his assigns for his life, without impeachment of waste, with remainder to G. J. Pitman and his heirs during the life of the Plaintiff', in trust for the Plaintiff and his assigns, with remainder to the Plaintiff, his heirs and assigns, the power of appointment commonly inserted in limitations to bar dower being omitted. The Plaintiff in March 1857 contracted to sell to the Defendant, the sale to be completed at Michaelmas 1857. The Defendant refused to complete unless G. J. Pitman concurred in the conveyance. Pitman being in Australia, the vendor declined to procure his concurrence, and filed his bill to enforce specific performance without it. The Vice-Chancellor held, that the objection of the purchaser was frivolous and vexatious, but technically well founded, and made a decree dated the 8th of March [626] 1858, directing an account of what was due to the Plaintiff for purchase-money and interest, regard being had to any rents that might in the meantime have been received by the Plaintiff, and also to such occupation rent as he might properly be charged with. The decree then proceeded to direct a conveyance upon payment of what was found due. And it was declared that upon the execution of the conveyance the Defendant would be entitled to have such estate as was then vested in G. J. Pitman, vested in himself, and it was ordered that the estate and interest of Pitman should, on the execution of the conveyance by the Plaintiff, vest in the Defendant, his heirs, and assigns, for the estate of Pitman therein. No costs were given up to-the hearing, but subsequent costs were reserved. 4DEG.&J,ue7. COLLARD V. ROE 205 The chief clerk calculated the interest: on the purchase-money from Michaelmas 1857...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chappell v Gregory
...227); Watts v. Symes (1 De G. M. & G. 240); Taylor v. Popham (15 Ves. 72); Norton v. Cooper (5 De G. M. & G. 728); and Collard v. Roe (4 De G. & J. 525), were referred to.] the lord justice knight bruce. The time during which this case has continued is, considering its nature, extraordinary......