Egerton v Jones
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 August 1830 |
| Date | 05 August 1830 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 39 E.R. 266
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
egerton ò. jones. August 5, [1830]. An exception to a report in favour of the title having been on argument allowed, leave was given to the Plaintiff, some time afterwards, to go again before the Master, for the purpose of bringing evidence to shew that the objection which the Court had sustained, was, in the circumstances, immaterial. This suit was instituted in April 1828 to compel the specific performance of a contract for the purchase of some building ground. The Master reported that a good title could be made, or that the objections were sufficiently answered or waived prior to the filing of the bill. On the 18th of March 1830 exceptions to the report were argued and allowed. On the 3d of May the Plaintiff moved that it might be referred back to the Master to inquire and state whether a good title could then be made ; -L BUSS. & M. 695. PORTMAN V. MILL '2()7 and upon that motion the Vice-Chancellor directed that the Master should review his report, the Plaintiff paying the costs of the application (3 Sim., 'M'2, and see Andrew v. Andrew, ibid., 390). The Defendant moved that His Honour's order might be discharged, [695] the solicltoh-g-knekal [Sugden] and Mr. H. Randall, for the motion, :argued that a purchaser is not to he hung up during interminable investigations in the Master's office, while the vendor is trying to patch a defective title. The Plaintiff had òchoseti to rest her case upon the single question, whether a devise made by an ancestor, under whom she claimed as heiress at law, was or was not void for remoteness (3 Sim., 409); and having been defeated upon that point, she now proposed to shew that the validity of the devise was immaterial, inasmuch as all the limitations under it had failed. That answer to the objection ought to have been brought forward when the other point was discussed. A vendor who had deliberately adopted a -certain course was not to be afterwards permitted to shift his ground, aud to support his title by a case entirely different from the one he originally stated. If the Defendant succeeded upon any one of fifty objections, the exceptions were allowed generally without going through them in detail ; aud although probably, if the Plaintiff had asked it at the time, the Master might have been directed to review his report, it was too late to come with such a motion at the end of six weeks. Ledi'incrc. v. Braxier ('1 .(. & W., 287), and Dalhij v. I'ullsn (1 Russ. & My., 296), were .authorities to shew that under such circumstances a purchaser would be released. Mr. "Wigram, cont-m, distinguished Lprliiiir.i'? v. }imnifi- and LhiVnj v. t'idlen, and relied upon Exdaile v. titefihensim (6 Mad., 360 ; Sugcl. V. P., 207). the lord chancellor [Lyndhurst]. If the decision of the Master, instead of being favourable to the Plaintiff, had been against her, as a matter [696] of course she would have been allowed to go back to support her title before him, upon the ground on which it is now sought to be sustained, and she ought not to be prejudiced by the Master having decided in her favour. The order ought to have been made on the original application ; but that has been rectified by the Plaintiffs coming so soon -after, and by her being compelled to pay the costs. (See the next case.)
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 1044
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 3 Sim. 409; 1 Russ. & My. 694; 39 E. R. 266.
Practice. Vendor and Purchaser. Title.
[392] egerton v. jones. May 3, 1830. [S. C. 3 Sim. 409; 1 Euss. & My. 694; 39 E. R. 266.] Practice. Vendor and Purchaser. Title. Upon the allowance of exceptions to a report approving of a title, the Court will, on the application of the vendor, refer it back to the Master to review his report, in 31111.313. ANDREWES V. GEOKQB 1045 order to give the vendor an opportunity of producing evidence to remove the objection. The question in this case was similar to that in the preceding one. The suit was instituted by the vendor of an estate against the purchaser, to compel a specific performance of the contract. The purchaser having objected to the title, the usual reference was made to the Master, and he reported in favour of the title. The Defendant then excepted to the report, and the exceptions were allowed. On a subsequent day Mr. Home and Mr. Wigram, for the Plaintiff, moved that it might be referred back to the Master to review his report, alleging that the Plaintiff could produce evidence to shew that certain limitations in a will (the existence of which was the ground of...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Hamilton v West
...2 Wils. 322. Denn v. PuckeyENR 5 T. R. 299. Blackborn v. EdgleyENR 1 P. Wms. 605. Target v. GauntENR 1 P. Wms. 432. Richardson v. JonesENR 3 Sim. 409. Greenwood v. Rothnutt 5 Man. & Gr. 628; S. C. 6 Scott's N. R. 670. Malcolm v. TaylorENR 2 Russ. & M. 416. Graves v. HicksENRENRENR 5 Ad. & E......
-
Stewart v The Marquis of Conyngham
...Simpson 1 Dr. & War. 459. Doe v. RossENR 7 M. & W. 123. Jenkins v. HerriesUNK 4 Mad. 67. Whitcomb v. FoleyUNK 6 Mad. 3. Egerton v. JonesENR 3 Sim. 392. Andrew v. AndrewENR 3 Sim. 390. Curling v. FlightENR 2 Phil. 613. Hart v. Middlehurst 3Atk. 371. Thompson v. Simpson 1 Dr. & War. 549. Brya......
-
Portman v Mill
...being in his favour than if it had been tho 268 HUNGATE V. GASCOIGXEFildes v. Hooker (2 Mer., 424); Brooke v. (4 Mad., 212); Eye.rtan v. Jonex (1 Russ. & My., 694) ; Scott v. Hanson (1 Russ. & My., 128); Lechmere v. H-rasicr (2 J. & W., 287). the lord chancellor [Lord Brougham], in givi......
-
Eno v Eno
...(3 Bro. P. C. 257 ; Tom. ed.), Wellington v. Wellington (4 Bur. 2165; S. C. 1 Black. 645), Jones v. Morgan (1 Bro. C. C. 206Egerton v. Jones (3 Sim. 409), JEllicombe v. Qompertz (3 Myl. & Cr. 127). It was [173] true that the construction was in this case sought to be applied to a deed, ......