Drysdale v Mace
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 March 1854 |
| Date | 16 March 1854 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 43 E.R. 809
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. 2 Sm. & G. 225; 2 Eq. R. 386; 23 L. J. Ch. 518; 2 W. R. 341.
[103] dbysdale v. mace. Before the Lords Justices. March 16, 1854. [S. C. 2 Sm. & G. 225 ; 2 Eq. R. 386; 23 L. J. Ch. 518 ; 2 W. R. 341.] By an agreement for the sale of a reversionary estate in fee, it was stipulated, that a statement in a deed of 1836, to the effect that a life annuity granted to A. B. had not been paid or claimed for eight years (supported by a declaration of the vendor that no claim had been made upon him since 1841, and that he believed that the annuity had not been claimed for the last twenty years), should be conclusive evidence that the annuity had determined. It appeared that the annuity was granted by a person entitled in reversion, and was granted for the life of the survivor of four persons, two at least of whom were living. Held, that the omission to state these circumstances disentitled the vendor to enforce the stipulation in a specific performance suit instituted by him. This was an appeal from the decision of Vice-Chancellor Stuart, dismissing with costs a claim for the specific performance of an agreement for the purchase of a freehold estate in fee-simple in reversion. The case is reported in the 2d Volume of Messrs. Smale and Giffard's Reports, page 225, where the facts will be found fully stated. The following is a summary of them:- The property had been put up for sale by auction, and not having been then sold was subsequently sold by private contract to the present Defendant, subject to printed conditions, which had been prepared for the sale by auction. Before the contract was entered into, the auctioneer requested the Defendant to take the advice of his solicitor upon the conditions. C. xxiii.-26* 810 DRYSDALE V. MACE 5 DEO. M. ft 0.104. The ninth condition of sale was as follows:- "That a statement in a deed of the 21st of December 1839, that a life annuity. granted to George Morris in [104] April 1824 had not been paid or claimed for eight years previously, and which will be supported by a declaration by the vendor that no claim has been made on him since the decease of his testator in 1841, and that he believes that the same has not been claimed for the last twenty years, shall be conclusive evidence of the fact of such annuity having determined, and of the cesser of the term limited for securing the same." On the abstract being delivered, it appeared from a recital in one of the. deeds abstracted, that by an indenture dated the 8th of April 1824, the then owner of the reversion and a surety covenanted to pay an annuity of 36 for the lives therein mentioned to George Morris, his executors, administrators and assigns; and ako demised the reversion to a trustee for a term of five hundred years, upon trust, in case the annuity should be in arrear for one calendar month, to sell the property, and by means of the money thereby raised to secure the annuity in manner therein mentioned. It did not appear on the abstract for how many lives the annuity was granted ; but the Defendant's solicitor ascertained that the annuity was payable during four lives and the life of the survivor, and that two at least of the lives were in existence. Mr. Malins and Mr. T. Stevens, for the Appellant. The ninth condition is clear and unambiguous, and was acceded to by the Defendant, not hastily in an auction-room, but after advising with his solicitor. It must therefore have the same effect as any other stipulation entered into with deliberation between competent persons properly advised; Hume v. Bentley (5 De G. & Sm. 520). The [105] notice afforded by the agreement of the deed of 1837 is notice of all its contents; Fenton v. Browne (14 Ves. 144), and Trower v. Newcome (3 Mer. 704). The price was regulated with reference to the risk of having to pay the annuity, and it would be most unjust to give the purchaser the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v Waugh
...had been recently underpinned. They were, therefore, put off inquiry, and on that ground the bill must be dismissed; Drysdale v. Mace (2 Sm. & G-. 225). [Price v: Macauley (2 De G. M. & G, 339, 346) and Sugd. V. & P. p. 279, 13th ed. were also cited.] the vice-chancellor [Sir John Stuart]. ......