Essex v Essex
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 May 1855 |
| Date | 02 May 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 674
ROLLS COURT
See Hogg v. Hogg, 1876, 35 L. T. 794. Followed, Cox v. Willoughby, 1880, 13 Ch. D. 863.
[442] essex . essex. May 2, 1855. [See Hogg v. Hogg, 1876, 35 L. T. 794. Followed, Cox v. Willoughby, 1880, 13 Ch. D. 863.] Two persons seised of freeholds agreed to carry on business in partnership upon the premises for fourteen years, and that if either died during that term, the survivor should purchase the freeholds at a stated price. The fourteen years having expired, they, by parol agreement, continued the partnership " on the old terms." One afterwards died intestate. Held, that the stipulation as to purchase was binding, and that the freeholds were converted into personal estate, and did not pass to the heir. Admissibility of evidence of a parol contract as to the continuance of a partnership where real estate is concerned. William Essex and his brother Thomas Essex were seised in fee of some freehold messuages in Stanhope Street, and entitled to certain leaseholds there, which they derived under the will of their father. They agreed by deed to become partners in the business of curriers and tanners, for a term of fourteen years from the 1st of January 1837, and to carry it on upon these premises, which were fitted for that purpose. The partnership deed contained a clause which, as far as is material, was as follows:- " In case either of the said parties shall depart this life during the said co-partnership term, the said co-partnership shall wholly cease, and the surviving partner shall purchase and take all the share, estate, right, title and interest of the deceased partner of and in the said freehold messuages and premises, Nos. 27 and 28 Stanhope Street. For the purpose of ascertaining and settling the price or value to be paid by the surviving partner for the said freehold messuages and premises, Nos. 27 and 28 Stanhope Street, it is agreed that the entirety of the same, including the plant and tati pits, shall be [443] valued at the sum of 5000, and each undivided moiety at 2500." The term of fourteen years expired in January 1851, after which they continued to carry on the business together, but they entered into no new articles of agreement for the co-partnership, and no break was made. They continued to carry on business in partnership on the premises on the same terms, as to division of profits and otherwise, as they had done during the fourteen years, until July 1854, when Thomas Essex died intestate, leaving the Plaintiff, his widow and administratrix, and the Defendant, Thomas Essex the younger, who was his heir, and other children. The Plaintiff now insisted that the stipulation for the purchase of Thomas's moiety of the freehold messuages, at 2500, was binding, and that the purchase-money was personal estate; but the Defendant, Thomas Essex the younger, on the contrary, contended that on his father's death, intestate, the freehold became vested in him. The solicitor of the partners, in his affidavit, stated that shortly after the termination of the term of fourteen years, he was consulted by the parties, and suggested the renewal of the partnership agreement, by fresh articles, but he " was informed by both of them, that they did not consider it necessary, inasmuch as they intended to remain in partnership on the old terms." By this bill, the Plaintiff prayed that the agreement for the purchase of this moiety of the freehold...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steadman v Steadman
...out at page 25 of Professor James Williams's invaluable work on the Statute of Frauds and include Dale v. Hamilton (1846) Ha, 369, and Essex v. Essex (1855) 20 Beav, 442. In Dale v. Hamilton the partnership was intended to deal exclusively with land and yet it was held that the Statute of F......
-
Commissioner of State Revenue v Rojoda Pty Ltd
...(1832) 1 My & K 649 at 663 [ 39 ER 826 at 832]; Houghton v Houghton (1841) 11 Sim 491 at 506 [ 59 ER 963 at 969]; Essex v Essex (1855) 20 Beav 442 at 450 [ 52 ER 674 at 677]; Darby v Darby (1856) 3 Drew 495 at 506 [ 61 ER 992 at 996]; Holroyd v Holroyd (1859) 7 WR 426 at 52 Carter Bros v Re......
-
Austen v Boys
...of Mulgrave (2 Keen, 81); Booth v. Parks (1 Molloy, 465); Whittaker v. Howe (3 Beav. 383); Bozon v. Farlow (1 Mer. 459); Essex v. Essex (20 Beav. 442); Colman v. Sarrel (1 Ves. jun. 50); Candler v. Candle.r (Jacob, 225) were referred to ; and see Const v. Haii-is (Turn. & R. 523); Guides v.......
-
Attorney General for Ireland v Jameson
...Cas. 367. (1) [1901] 1 Ch. 279. (1) [1901] I. R. at p. 393. (2) 20 Ch. D. 562. (1) 18 Beav. 330. (2) 26 Ch. D. 801. (3) 38 Ch. D. 176. (1) 20 Beav. 442. (2) 13 Ch. D. (1) L. R. 4 H. L. 100. (2) 5 A. C. 842. (1) [1901] 1 Ch. 279. (2) [1902] 1 I. R. 376. (1) L. R. 4 H. L. 100. (1) 5 A. C. 842......