Howlands v Norris
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 February 1784 |
| Date | 18 February 1784 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 29 E.R. 1062
LORD CHANCELLOR, IN LINC. INN HALL.
1062 HOWLAND V. NOREIS 1 COX, 60. howland versus norris. Lord Chancellor, in Line. Inn Hall. Feb. 18, 1784. A contract having been made for sale of an estate, it afterwards appeared that there were several outgoings from the estate, which were not disclosed at the time of the contract; yet these being matters which lie in compensation," the contract shall be carried into execution, with an allowance only to the purchaser for these particulars which diminish the value. The agreement not being completed within the time specified, the purchaser shall be allowed interest for such time as the purchase money shall appear to have been kept dead, for the special purpose of completing the contract. This was a bill to compel a specific performance of an agreement, under the following circumstances : James Adams by his will, dated the 15th of Sept. 1774, devised his real estates to the plaintiffs Howland and another, in trust, to sell the same and apply the produce in manner therein mentioned. In October 1775 the testator died, and on the 30th day of May 1776 the estates were sold by public auction, when Eichard Norris became the purchaser of two lots, on the behalf of the defendant Earl Stanhope, at the sum of 6240, and paid down 312 as a deposit. By the conditions of sale the purchases were to be completed and the estates conveyed on or before the 29th day of September following. In the same year a suit was instituted in this court to carry the trusts of the testator's will into execution, which took notice of a contract having been made with the defendants for the sale of the said premises, although they were not made parties ; and on 18th Dec. 1777 a decree was made in, that cause, when it was referred to the Master (amongst other things) [60] to inquire whether any contract had been made for the sale of the said real estates, and whether the same was proper to be carried into execution, and if so, then that the same should be executed accordingly. By a separate report made the 29th July 1779, the Master reported that the above-mentioned contract had been entered into, and that the same was proper to be carried into execution. In this situation of things Richard Norris died. The present bill was brought against the representatives of Norris and against Earl Stanhope, and prayed the said contract might be carried into execution. The defendant Earl Stanhope, by his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drewe v Hanson
...had pressed for the opinion of the Lord Chancellor upon the question ; and the cause was afterwards settled.) (1) 'Rowland v. Norris, 1 Cox, 59; 7 Yen. 270; 17 Yes, 280; 1 Mer. 23, 104. See the strong opinion of Lord Erskine upon these cases in Ilalsey v. Grant, 13 Yes, 73. In 2 Swanst. 225......
-
Daniel Linehan and Others, Petitioners; Sir James Laurence Cotter, Bart.(A Minor), and Others, Respondent. Robert Martin, and Others v Sir James L. Cotter, Bart., and Others
...K. 567; more fully reported in 4 Ir. Eq. Rep. 500. Bessonet v. RobinsENR Sau. & sc. 142. Dyer v. Hargrave 10 Ves. 505. Rowland v. NorrisENR 1 Cox, 59. Cann v. CannENR 3 Sim. 447. 176 CASES IN EQUITY. In the matter of DANIEL LINEHAN and others, Petitioners; SIR JAMES LAURENCE COTTER, Bart., ......