Flight v Bolland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 March 1828 |
| Date | 17 March 1828 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 38 E.R. 817
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
START [298] flight v. bolland. Rolls. Feb. 15, 19, March 17, 1828. An infant cannot sustain a suit for the specific performance of a contract, because the remedy is not mutual. The bill was filed by the Plaintiff, as an adult, for the specific performance af a contract. After the suit was ready for hearing, the Defendant, having discovered that the Plaintiff was, at the time of the filing of the bill, and still continued, an 818 FLIGHT V. HOLLAND 4 RTJSS. 299. infant, moved the Court, that the bill might be dismissed with costs to be paid by the Plaintiff's solicitor. "Upon that occasion the Vice-Chancellor made an order, that the Plaintiff should be at liberty to amend his bill, by inserting a next friend for the Plaintiff ; and the bill was amended accordingly. Upon the opening of the case, a preliminary objection was taken, that a bill on the part of an infant for the specific performance of a. contract made by him could not be sustained. Mr. Bickersteth and Mr. Koe, in support of the objection. There is no instance of a decree for specific performance at the suit of an infant, and it would be contrary to the principles of a court of equity to entertain such a suit. Courts of equity, acting merely on equitable principle, will not lend their aid, where the remedy is not mutual : want of mutuality has always been deemed^ sufficient ground for refusing specific performance of a contract. Howell v. George (1 Mad. 1), Lawrenson v. Butler (1 Sch. & Lef. 13). It is clear that specific performance could not be decreed [299] against an infant, Co. Lit. '2 b ; and, therefore, it will not be decreed at the suit of an infant. Even if a decree were made according to the prayer of the bill, it would be impossible for the Court to compel the Plaintiff to execute that decree. He could not be forced to pay the purchase-money ; and, on attaining' his full age, he might repudiate the contract and the suit. At law, an infant may maintain an action for breach of a contract, Warwick v. Bruce (2 M. & S. 205) ; but he has no remedy in equity. Mr. Pepys, Mr. Morley, and Mr. Stuart, for the Plaintiff. There are cases, in which a court of equity will decree specific performance, though there is not mutuality of remedy. If a husband, seised jure uxoris, were to contract for the sale of his wife's estate, the husband and the wife could enforce the contract against the purchaser ; yet, if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pimm v Insall
...Chancellor's judgment, the following were also cited : Hastings v. Orde (11 Sim. 205), Godsal v. Webb (2 Keen, 99), Flight v. Holland (4 Russ. 298), Zouch d. Abbot v. Parsons (3 Burr. 1794, 1808), Dwrnford v. Lane (1 Bro. C. C. 106), Doe d. Simpson v. Butcher (1 Doug. 50), Machil v. Clark (......
-
Cheale v Kenward
...(7 Exch. 669), Underwood v. Hithcox (1 Ves. 274), Bower v. Cooper (2 Hare, 408), Lawrensm v. Butler (1 Sch. & Lef. 13), Flight v. Holland (4 Russ. 298). the lord chancellor. At the close of the argument on behalf of the Defendant I had formed an opinion contrary to that of the Master of the......
-
Norris v Jackson
...offer to waive the other conditions the Plaintiff has no right to insist on a lease. This seems to be the principle of Flight v. Bollando (4 Russ. 298). This is not like the case where a Plaintiff binds himself by filing a bill. It is a unilateral agreement until the Plaintiff makes it mutu......
-
Fennelly and Others v Anderson
...FENNELLY and others and ANDERSON. Flight v. BollandENR 4 Russ. 298. Howell v. GeorgeUNK 1 Mad. 1. Armiger v. ClarkeENR Bunbury, 111. Emery v. Wase 8 Ves. 505; S. C. 5 Ves. 846. Davis v. JonesUNK 1 New Rep. 267. Martin v. MitchellENR 2 Jac. & W. 425. Leathem v. Allen Supra, p. 683. Anderson ......
-
Specific Performance and Injunctions
...Jones v Tucker (1916), 53 SCR 431. 72 Langen & Wind Ltd v Bell , [1972] Ch 685. 73 See, for example, Flight v Bolland (1828), 4 Russ 298, 38 ER 817 (CA); Lumley v Ravenscroft , [1895] 1 QB 683 (CA). THE L AW OF CONTR ACTS 1108 In such cases, courts were evidently concerned that the legal st......
-
Table of cases
...v Bealey (1885), 28 Ch D 688, 52 LT 541, 54 LJ Ch 424...................... 294 Table of Cases 741 Flight v Bolland (1828), 4 Russ 298, 38 ER 817, [1824–34] All ER Rep 372 (Ch) .......................................................................................... 418 Foderaro v Future H......
-
Table of Cases
................................................................................................ 195 Flight v. Bolland (1828), 4 Russ. 298, 38 E.R. 817, [1824–34] All E.R. Rep. 372 (Ch.) ............................................................... 302 Foderaro v. Future Homes Construction L......
-
Specific Performance and Injunctions
...Tucker (1916), 53 S.C.R. 431. 62 Langen & Wind Ltd . v. Bell , [1972] Ch. 685. 63 See, for example, Flight v. Bolland (1828), 4 Russ. 298, 38 E.R. 817; Lumley v. Ravenscroft , [1895] 1 Q.B. 683 (C.A.). Specific Performance and Injunctions 929 plaintiff. In Gretzky v. Ontario Minor Hockey A......