Cox v Coventon
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 July 1862 |
| Date | 17 July 1862 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 54 E.R. 1185
ROLLS COURT
S1BBAV.378. COX V. COVEN TON 1185 [378] Cox v. coventon. June 24, 25, July 17, 1862. A person having a partial interest redeemed the land tax on three several tenements, by one contract and at one price. Held, that the three charges were not consolidated so as to give him one aggregate charge on all tenements, but that he acquired three separate charges on the three several tenements. Extent to which a purchaser is held to have notice of the contents of documents referred to in the particulars of sale. If property is declared to be sold subject to the provisions contained in a deed which ia specially referred to, without mentioning its contents, and which deed can be examined before the sale by the purchaser, he is bound by everything contained in that deed. But if the vendor, instead of referring the purchaser to the deed to ascertain its contents, himself states what the contents are, the purchaser is not bound to examine the deed, but may reasonably trust to the representation of it, contained in the particulars of sale, as being a correct statement of its contents. Redeemed land tax, amounting to 41 per annum, was sold by auction in one lot. The particulars represented 3, 14s. (part of it) as charged on three houses, but stated that the title consisted of a contract for redemption of the land tax of the 25th of March 1818. This contract, when produced after the sale, shewed that the j3, 14s. was not charged on three houses, but consisted of three small sums, each charged separately on one of the houses. Held, first, that the misdescription was fatal; secondly, that the reference to the contract did not give the purchaser notice of the actual state of the title; thirdly, that it was not a matter susceptible of compensation, and a bill by the vendor for specific performance was dismissed with costs. In January 1862 the Plaintiff put up for sale by auction, in one lot, the land tax charged on certain premises, amounting together to 41, 2s. per annum, which, omitting immaterial parts) the particulars of sale described as follows :- " Being the land tax- "OnNoa. 102 and 103, &0..&C. . . . ^T"^ " On dwelling-house and workshops Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in King Street, adjoining the above premises on the west side, in the occupation of the said Messrs. Pearce & Countze . . . 3140 " On a dwelling-house and shop, being, &c. . . 4100 " On workshops in King Street, &c. . . . 330 " On workshops in King Street between the last-named premises and the premises Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in King Street above mentioned, and in the occu pation of the said Messrs. Pearce & Countze 315 0 '41 2 0" [379] The material conditions of sale were as follows :- 2. Tb " ' " _. The title shall consist of five several contracts, all respectively dated 25th March 1818, for the redemption of the land tax by Mr. Godsall," and the assignment to the vendor of the 15th of April 1837 ; "and the purchaser shall assume that such several contracts were, in every respect, made in conformity with the Acts of Parliament in that behalf," and shall not be entitled to call for the mesne assignments prior to the deed of the 15th April 1837 ; " and such deed shall be conclusive evidence of everything recited, assumed or implied therein." The third condition provided that the vendor (sic) should not object that the deed of assignment had not been registered and was unstamped, or by reason of the want of attestation to the execution of the deed of assignment by G. P. F. Gregory, or to his signature of the receipt clause. "4. The vendor will, if required, make a declaration that he has, for the last E. vii.-38 1186 COX V, COVENTON 31 BEAV. 380. twenty-four years, received the total amount of 41, 2s. for the land tax on the several premises, and in the proportions mentioned in the particulars, from the occupiers of such last-mentioned premises," &c. The Defendant became the purchaser for 900. The abstract to the land tax, which had been redeemed by a person not having the entire interest in the property charged with the land tax (as in Trevor v. Trevor, 2 Myl. & K. 675), was delivered. The abstract shewed the following title to the second and fifth parcels, and to which alone the purchaser's objection applied. [380] By a deed-poll or contract, executed the 25th day of March 1818, under the hands and seals of the Commissioners, the said Commissioners certified that they had contracted and agreed with Philip Godsal, for the redemption by him of 3, 14s. land tax, being the land tax charged upon a dwelling-house and two workshops in the occupation of Baxter & Company, in Cross Lane, Long Acre, and which premises stood charged, in the assessment for the ward of Long Acre, for the year ending the 25th March 1818, as follows, viz.- Name of Proprietor. Name of Occupier. Sinn assessed. Mercers' Company . Philip Godsal, Esq. . Baxter & Co. . . . Baxter & Co. . Baxter & Co. . . . 1 : 12s. 1 : Is. 1 : Is. The consideration, being 66, 12s. in money, was paid to the Eeceiver-General. By another deed-poll or contract, dated the same 25th of March 1818, under the hands and seals of the Commissioners, they certified that they had contracted and agreed with Philip Godsal for the redemption by him of 3, 15s. land tax...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cullen v O'Meara and Another
...Bing. N. C. 463. Plumb v. Flint 1 Ans. 438. Jones v. SmithENR 1 Hare, 43, 60. Ware v. Lord Egmont 4 De G. M'N. & G. 460. Coxv. CoventonENR 31 Beav. 378. Spunner v. WalshIR 10 Ir. Eq. 386, 400. Martin v. Cotter 3 J. & L. 506. Flight v. BoothENR 1 Bing. N. C. 370. Wilbraham v. LiveseyENR 18 B......
-
Coates v Kenna
...Kenney v. Brown 3 Ridgw. P. C. 518. West v. ErrisseyENR 2 P. Wms. 349. Ratssliffe v. BarnardELR L. R. 6 Ch. App. 652. Cox v. CeventonENR 31 Beav. 378. Perry Herrick v. AttwoodENR 2 De G. & J. 21. Hunter v. WaltersELR L. R. 7 Ch. App. 85. Re Marseilles Extension Railway Co.ELR L. R. 7 ch. Ap......