Gibbins v The Board of Management of the North-Eastern Metropolitan Asylum District

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date15 November 1847
Date15 November 1847
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 716

ROLLS COURT

Gibbins
and
The Board of Management of the North-Eastern Metropolitan Asylum District

S C. 17 L. J. Ch. 5. See Rossiter v. Miller, 1878, 3 App. Cas. 1152. Distinguished, Jones v. Daniel [1894], 2 Ch. 332.

Reports of CASES in CHANCERY ARGUED and DETERMINED in the ROLLS COURT during the time of LORD LANGDALE, Master of the Rolls. 1848, 1849. By CHARLES BEAVAN, Esqr., M.A., Barrister-at-Law. Vol. XI. 1850. [1] gidbins v. the board of management otf the north-eastern metropolitan asylum disthect. Nov. 13, 15, 1847. [S. C. 17 L. J. Ch. 5. See Rossiter v. Miller, 1878, 3 App. Gas. 1152. Distinguished, Jm.es v. Daniel [1894], 2 Ch. 332.] A.'s agent wrote to B., " I am directed to offer you for the premises 3000," &c. B. replied, " We accept your offer. If you approve of the enclosed, sign the same, and we will, on receipt of the deposit, sign you a copy." B. filed a bill for specific performance, and A. did not produce the enclosure. Held, that the two letters constituted a valid contract, intended to be carried into effect by the enclosure ; and that, though it did not appear that the enclosure had been approved of, still that this did not affect the prior valid contract. This suit was instituted by the vendor against the Defendants to compel the specific performance of a contract for the sale of some property. The contract relied on was substantially as follows :-After some negotiation, the Defendants' agent, ou the 15th of January 1846, wrote to the Plaintiff's agent as follows :-"I am directed by the Board of Management of the North-Eastern Metropolitan Asylum District, iiv reference to your letter of the 26th of November last, to offer you for the premises therein referred to the sum [2] of 3000, which sum is to include the tank and its. appurtenances, together with the house fixtures. I say 3000." The Plaintiff's agent, on the 16th of January 1846, returned the following answer :-" In reply to yours of yesterday, we beg to inform you we accept your offer for the estate at Mile End. If you approve of the enclosed, sign the same, and on the receipt of the deposit, we will sign you a copy." As to this enclosure, the bill alleged, that in the letter was enclosed a memorandum in writing to be signed by the Defendants' agent, embodying in more-formal words the terms of the said contract, and that it was in the hands of the Defendants. There was some further correspondence as to the payment of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Re The Norwich Yarn Company ex parte Bignold
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 31 May 1856
    ...to a wholly distinct undertaking, aa, for instance, a brewery, or a steam-packet company (see (Jolman v. The Eastern Counties Railway Co., 10 Beavan, 1); and further, that they were bound to devote a sufficient portion of their time and attention to the business of the undertaking, and furt......
  • Winch v The Birkenhead, Lancashire and Cheshire Junction Railway Company
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 31 May 1852
    ...315), Bromley v. Smith (1 Sim. 8), Preston v. The Grand Collier Dock Company (11 Sim. 327), Colman v. The Eastern Counties Railway Company (10 Beav. 1}, Ward v. The Society of Attornies (1 Coll. 370), and Mozley v. Alston (1 Ph. 790). . [575] Mr. Follett, in reply. The eases cited in suppor......
  • Doolan v Midland Railway Company
    • United Kingdom
    • Exchequer Division
    • 17 January 1876
    ...Anglian Railway Company v. The Eastern Counties Railway CompanyENR 11 C. B. (N. S.) 775. Colman v. The Eastern Counties Railway CompanyENR 10 Beav. 1. Aldridge v. The Great Western Railway CompanyENR 15 C. B. (N. S.) 582. South Wales Railway Company v. RedmondENR 10 C. B. (N. S.) 675. Alexa......
  • The Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway Company v The London and North-Western Railway Company
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 8 February 1853
    ...Newmarket Railway Company (21 L. J. (Q. B.) 398); Natusch v. Irving (Gow on Partnership, 407); Caiman v. Eastern Counties Railway Company (10 Beav. 1); Bayshaw v. Eastern Union Railway Company (2 H. & Tw. 201); Cohen v. Wilkinson (12 Beav. 125, 138) ; Haivkes v. Eastern Counties Railway Com......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT