Hodges v Horsfall and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 December 1829 |
| Date | 16 December 1829 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 39 E.R. 45
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Squire v. Campbell, 1836; 1 My. Cr., 480; Baumann v. James, 1868, L. R. 3 Ch. 512.
[116] HODltES '. HORSFAU, AND OTHERS. Dec,. 8, 9, 16, [1829]. [See tiquire v. Campbell, 1836 ; 1 My. & Or., 480 ; Hmunann v. Jame.s, 1868, L. K. 3 CU. 512.] Where an agreement expressly refers to a plan as an existing document, forming a term in the contract, parol evidence is admissible for the purpose of identifying the plan. But unless the evidence of identity is clear and satisfactory, specific, performance of such an agreement will be refused. [n the year 1821 Samuel Hodges entered into a negotiation with William Horsfall, for the purpose of procuring a reversionary lease of a parcel of land with the buildings erected thereupon, of which Horsfall was the owner in fee. Tho premises were at that time subject to a lease, which was not to expire till Midsummer 1824. After some treaty the parties respectively signed a written agreement, which was prepared by Horsfall's attorney, and which, as far as is material to the, present question, was in the following words:-"Memorandum of agreement made the 18th day of August 1821, between William Horsfall of, itc., of the one part, and Samuel Hodges of, etc., of the other part. William Horsfall does hereby agree for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, to grant a lease unto Samuel Hodges, his executors, administrators, or assigns, of all those premises at Battle Bridge, now in the occupation of Younge, known by the sign of the Maidenhead public house, with the additions intended to be made thereto by Samuel Hodges as per plan agreed upon, for a term of thirty-one years from Midsummer 1824. The said Samuel Hodges agrees to pay to William Horsfall a premium of 1500 sterling money for the grant of such lease, at 80 per annum, the said rent to commence from the 25th day of June, which will be in the year of our Lord 1824; the rent to be paid quarterly on the usual days for payment of rent, the first payment to be made on the 29th day of September 1824." The agreement also contained provisos for the insertion of the usual covenants in the lease, aud a [117] clause requiring that the additions should be made within twelve months after the lessee was let into possession; and it further stipulated that the whole premium of 1500 should be paid by Michaelmas 1821. Prior to this contract with Hodges two other proposals had been made to Horsfall for a lease of the same premises, on behalf of persons of the names of Testar and Younge. The negotiations, which ensued upon the subject between them and Horsfall, were afterwards successfully broken off; but, in the course of them, certain plans were produced and shewn by the latter, particularly specifying the additions and improvements, which he, as landlord, would expect an incoming tenant to execute. By all of these plans, special provision was made for bringing iorward the front of the Maidenhead public house, so as to be in a line with thrue other houses which Horsfall had recently erected on the immediately adjoining plot of ground; but two of them differed considerably in their details. According to the first, denominated Testar's plan, from having been the one shewn to Mr. Testar, it was intended that the whole of the old buildings, together with the required additions, should compose a single tenement only. According to the other two, of which one was rather more ornamental than the other, but which were substantially the same, and were treated throughout the argument as forming one plan, and 46 HODGES V. HORSFALL 1 RUBS. & M. 118.. distinguished by the name of Youuge's plan, it was proposed that the additions should be made in such a manner as to constitute, with the original building, two houses. In the month of August 1821, immediately on signing the agreement, before stated, Hodges paid into the hands of Horsfall the sum of 100, as part of the stipulated premium; and, in the October following, Horsfall having [118] caused a lease to be prepared, to which was annexed a copy of the plan called Tester's plan, tendered it for execution to Hodges, and at the same time made a demand upon him to pay up the balance of the consideration-money. Hodges, however, refused to execute the lease ; and Horsfall thereupon commenced a suit for specific performance, alleging that the plan for converting the old buildings, together with the proposed additions, into one tenement was the one specifically designated by the memorandum. In hia defence Hodges insisted that, if any plan were particularly referred to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holland v Clark
...is a patent uncertainty in the words " accounts " and " claims," which cannot be explained by parol evidence. In Hodges v. Horse/all (1 Russ. & M. 116) the agreement referred to a particular plan, and parol evidence was admitted to identify the plan. But the Courts will allow such parol evi......
-
Brace v Wehnert
...this case, as everything was left uncertain respecting it, no plan having been submitted and approved of. They cited Hodges v. Horsfall (1 Russ. & M. 116); Squire v. Campbell (1 Myl. & Or. 459); Feoffees of Herriot's Hospital [351] v. Gibson (2 Dow. 301); Lucas v. 'Comerford (3 Bro. C. C. 1......
-
Misfud v. Owens Corning Canada Inc., [2003] O.T.C. 871 (SC)
..."as per plan agreed upon" and it appeared that two plans had been inspected (Hodges v. Horsfall (1829), 1 Russ, & My. 116, 39 E.R. 45)". [6] In the case at bar, there is no such latent ambiguity. The provisions of the 1972 Pension Agreement and 1981 Pension Agreement, whi......