Framlingham v Brand
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 November 1746 |
| Date | 07 November 1746 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 1024
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Case 129.-joynbs versus statham, October 29, 1746. [See Clinan v. Cooke, 1802, 1 Sch. & Lef. 38.] A bill brought to carry an agreement into execution for a lease of a house which was signed by the defendant the lessor only, who by his answer insisted it ought to be insert in the agreement that the tenant should pay the rent clear of taxes, the plaintiff who wrote the agreement having omitted to make it so, and offered to read evidence to shew this was a part of the agreement. The evidence ought to be admitted, for if there has been any omission, the defendant ought to have the benefit of it by way of objection to a specific performance. The bill was brought to carry an agreement into execution for a lease of a house during the life of the defendant's wife, which was signed by the defendant the lessor only : upon the face of the agreement the plaintiff was to pay a rent of nine pounds a-year. The defendant insists by his answer, that it ought to have been inserted in the agreement that the tenant should pay the rent clear of taxes, but the plaintiff having , written the agreement himself, and omitted to make it clear of taxes, and that the defendant, unless this had been the agreement, would not have sunk the rent from fourteen pounds to nine pounds, and offered to read evidence to shew this was part of the agreement. The plaintiff's counsel insisted, that the defendant ought not to be admitted to parol proof, to add to the written agreement, which is expressly guarded against by the statute of frauds and perjuries. The cases cited for the plaintiff were Cheney's case, 5 Go. 68, 1, and Selwin versus Brown, Gas. in Lord Talbot's time, 248. [389] For the defendant was cited Walker versus Walker, December the 10th and llth, 1740, before Lord Hardwicke. (Vide ante, 2 Tr. Atk. Case, 92, pa. 98.) Lord Chancellor. I permitted this point to be debated at large, because it is decisive in the cause, for I am very clear this evidence ought to be read. 1024 FRAML1NGHAM V. BRAND 3 ATK. 390. This has been taken up by way of objection to the plaintiff's bill. The constant doctrine of this court is, that it is in their discretion, whether in such a bill they will decree a specific performance, or leave the plaintiff to his remedy at law. Now, has not the defendant a right to insist, either on account of an omission, mistake, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pratt v Mathew
..."unmarried" had been held to mean "not having been married." They referred to Goshawke v. Chiggell (Cro. Car. 154); Framlingham v. Brand (3 Atk. 390); Maberly v. Strode (3 Ves. 450); Bell v. Phyn (7 Ves. 453); Doe v. Gooke (1 Skat, 269); Doe v. Sawding (2 B. & A. 441); Hall v. Robertson (4 ......
-
The Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests, Francis Dillon, and Matthew Dillon Thomas, - Appellants; Thomas Harris, Arthur Wise, Abel Labertouche, James Montgomery, and John Robinson, - Respondents
..." was repugnant." James died unmarried; but as Thomas was married, and the moiety of James * 2 B. & A. 441. t 7 East, 269. J Sir E. Sugden. 3 Atk. 390. || 2 N. R. 38. 125 IV BLIGH N. S. DILLON V. HARRIS [1830] was not devised over, the brother being dead, unmarried, and without issue, there......
-
Fairfield (on the demise of Amory Hawkesworth and Martha his Wife, and of Amory Hawkesworth and Daniel Prendergast) v Morgan; in Error
...v. Hunt, Pollexf. 645. 1?arker v Sure tees, 2 Stra. 1175. Walsh v. Peterson, 3 Atk. 193. 9 Mod. 444, edit. by Leach. Framlingham v. Brand, 3 Atk, 390. 1 Wils. 140. Brownsword v. Edwards, 2 Ves. 243, and Wright d, Burrell v, Kemp, 3 Term Rep. 470. In these cases a disjunctive has been constr......
-
Wright on the demise of Ann Burrill otherwise Wallis, and Mary Burrill otherwise Wallis v Kemp
...and where sense requires it, there are many cases to shew that we may construe the word or into and, and and into or, 2 Str. 1175, and 3 Atk. 390, in order to effectuate the intent of the parties. Here, therefore, in order to give effect to the intention of the surrenderor, we must say, tha......