Daniels v Davison
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 March 1811 |
| Date | 01 March 1811 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 33 E.R. 978
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Miles v. Langley, 1829, 1 Russ. & My. 42; Bailey v. Richardson, 1852, 9 Hare, 736; James v. Lichfield. 1869, L. R. 9 Eq. 54; Hughes v. Seanor, 1870, 18 W. R. 1122; Cavander v. Bulteel, 1873, L. R. 9 Ch. 83; Caballero v. Henty, 1874, L. R. 9 Ch. 449; Phillips v. Miller, 1874-75, L. R. 9 C. P. 207; L. R. 10 C. P. 429.
daniels v. davjson. March nth, Aug. 3th, 1809. [See Miles v. Langley, 1829, 1 Russ. & My. 42 ; Bailey v. Ricliardson, 1852, 9 Hare, 736 ; James v. Lichfield. 1869, L. R. 9 Eq. 54 ; Hughes v. Seanor, 1870, 18 W. R. 1122; Cavander v. Bulteel, 1873, L. R. 9 Ch. 83; Caballero v. Henty, 1874, L. R. 9 Ch. 449 ; Phillips v. Miller, 1874-75, L. R. 9 0. P. 207; L. R. 10 C. P. 429.] The possession of a tenant is notice to a purchaser of the actual interest he may have, either as tenant, or, farther, as in this instance, by an agreement to purchase the premises. Whether, after a contract for sale of an estate, the vendor, selling to a purchaser for valuable consideration without notice, is not accountable for the money as a trustee, Qucere. To obtain a specific performance of a contract the subject must be proved, as described. The Bill stated the following agreement, executed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant Damson : 16 VES. JUN. 250. DANIELS V. DAYISON 979 " Memorandum : it is this day, 1st February 1802, agreed between John Davison, " of the East India House, London, and James Daniels, of Baling, in the county of " Middlesex, that the said John Davison shall sell to the said James Daniels, his " public house, called the Plough, now in the occupation of the said James Daniels, " together with the garden belonging to the said house, for the sum of 200, to be " paid on or before the 25th of March next ensuing, provided the said premises " are copyhold, but if it should appear that any part thereof is freehold, then this " agreement to be void." The Bill farther stated, that the Plaintiff, in March 1802, before the day appointed, tendered the purchase-money ; and demanded a surrender : but the Defendant Davison refused to perform the contract; and sold the premises to the Defendant Thomas Rea Cole, for 300 ; charging notice of the Plaintiff's agreement before the surrender to Cole, and payment of his money ; and [250] prayed a specific performance of the agreement; that Cole may be decreed to surrender to the Plaintiff : or, if it shall appear, that he is a purchaser without notice, that Davison may account for the difference between the price, stipulated by the agreement, and the sum, at which he sold to Cole. The Defendant Davison by his Answer suggested, that some part of the premises was freehold ; and therefore he was discharged from the agreement; admitting however, that he could not distinguish the freehold from the copyhold. The Defendant Cole denied notice of the agreement, until after the Bill was filed ; which was in October 1805 ; and the Plaintiff's lease was to expire at Michaelmas following. The Answer also admitted that the premises were conveyed to Cole by surrender ; the reason of which was represented in evidence to be to save the expence of a lease and release for the freehold part; which could not be exactly ascertained. There was contradictory evidence as to part of the premises being freehold, and upon the point of notice. The Lord Chancellor, when the cause was opened, said, there was a decision...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams & Glyn's Bank Ltd v Boland
... [1971] Ch. 892). These decisions (following the law as it undoubtedly existed before 1925—see Barnhart v. Greenshields 1.c. p.32, Daniels v. Davison (1809) 16 Ves. 249, Allen v. Anthony (1816) 1 Mer. 282, 284 per Lord Eldon) provide an answer to the argument that there is a firm dividing l......
-
Burgess v Monk
...and therefore liable to account. It is not however necessary to decide that point … 101 102 Ibid, at 1076. Daniels v Davison (1809) 16 Ves Jun 249, 33 ER 1169 (LC) at [182] While recognising that Lord Eldon had left the point open, Walton J considered that, while put in the form of a query,......
-
Luxe Holding Ltd v Midland Resources Holding Ltd
...silent on this save for one case which the industry of Mr. Millett has unearthed, a decision of Lord Eldon LC in Daniels v. Davison (1809) 16 Ves. Jun. 249. I can go straight away to the passage in the judgment of Lord Eldon LC on this point where he says, at p. 254: “My judgment on that po......
-
Ramlal v Mahase et Al
...(1) Halsbury's laws of England, 1st Edition, Vol. 25, paras 573,575,576; (2) Stokell v Niven (1889) 64 IT 18; (3) Daniels v Davison 34 ER 167; (4) Holmes v. PoweII 44 ER 510; (5) Snell's Equity, 29th Edition 609–610; (6) Bluck v Gompertz 7 Ex 862; (7) Halsbury's laws of England (4th Edition......