James Shepherd, Richard Wood, Nathaniel Dornett, James Webber, and Edmund Pontifex, Assignees of the Estate and Effects of John Plummer and William Wilson, Bankrupts v Michael Keatley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 1018
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 4 Tyr. 571; 3 L. J. Ex. 288. Approved, Sellick v. Trever, 1843, 11 M. & W. 722. Discussed, Hume v. Bentley, 1852, 5 De G. & Sm. 525. Followed, Waddell v. Wolfe, 1874, L. R. 9 Q. B. 520. Distinguished, Hume v. Pocock, 1865, L. R. 1 Eq. 431; In re National Provincial Bank of England and Marsh, [1895] 1 Ch. 196. Referred to, Spunner v. Walsh, 1847, 10 Ir. Eq. R. 403; Darlington v. Hamilton, 1854, Kay, 558; 2 Eq. R. 909; Harnett v. Baker, 1875, L. R. 20 Eq. 55; Best v. Hamand, 1879, 12 Ch. D. 5.
[117] james shepherd, richard wood, nathaniel dornett, james webber, and edmund pontifex, Assignees of the Estate and Effects of John Plummer and William Wilson, Bankrupts v. michael, KfiATLEV. Exch. of Pleas. 1834.-On a sale hy auction of leasehold property, one of the conditions of sale was, that the vendor "should not be obliged to produce the lessor's title," the vendee having aliunde discovered certain defects in the lessor's title :-Held, that notwithstanding the above condition, he was entitled to insist upon those defects. [S. C. 4 Tyr. 571 ; 3 L. J. Ex. 288. Approved, Sdlick v. Trever, 1843, 11 M. & W. 722. Discussed, Hume v. Bentky, 1852, 5 De G. & Sm. 525. Followed, IVaddell v. Wolfe, 1874, L. E. 9 Q. 13. 520. Distinguished, Hume v. PocoiJc, 1865, L. li. I Eq. 431 ; In re National Provincial Hank of England and Marsh, [1895] 1 Ch. 19C. Referred to, Spunner v. Walsh, 1847, 10 Ir. Eq. R. 403; Darlinyton v. Hamiltoti, 1854, Kay, 558; 2 Eq. R. 909; Harndl v. Baker, 1875, L. R. 20 Eq. 55; Best v. Hamand, 1879, 12 Ch. D. 5.] This was an action brought by the plaintiff's, as assignees, against the defendant, for the breach of a contract entered into between the plaintiff's, as assignees, and the defendant, for the purchase by him, the defendant, of a certain leasehold estate. The declaration contained three special counts on the contract, and an iudehitatus count for a leasehold estate bargained and sold, and for monies, and on an account stated. The defendant pleaded noil assumpsit; and issue having been joined thereon, by the consent of the attornies for the plaintiff's and for the defendant, and, by the order of Mr. Baron Parke, the following case was stated for the opinion of the Court, according to the form of the statute (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, s. 25): - Case. " By indenture, bearing date the 21st day of March, 181(5, and made between John Crosse Crooke, therein described, of the first part; John Ellison, therein described, of the second part; Henry Bates, therein described, and Sarah his wife, and John Henry Bates, son and heir apparent of the said Henry Bates, by the said Sarah his wife, of the third part; and John Plummer, therein described, of the fourth part; after reciting that the said John Crosse Crooke, John Ellison, Henry Hates, and Sarah his wife, and John Henry Bates, were seised of and entitled to the messuage or tenements and other hereditaments and premises thereinafter particularly mentioned and described, and agreed to be demised in the shares or proportions following; that is to say, the said [118] John Crosse Crooke to two equal undivided fourth parts or shares thereof, the whole into four equal parts or shares to be considered as divided; the said John Ellison to one other like equal undivided fourth part or share thereof ; and (he said Henry Bates and Sarah his wife, and the said John Henry Bates, to tha remaining like one equal undivided fourth part or shar^ thereof; and that they had agretjd, for the Consideration thereinafter mentioned, and especially in consideration of the said John Plummer having undertaken to lay out the sum of in erecting one or more substantial building or buildings of brick or stone on the said demised premises, in addition to or improvement of the buildings already standing thereon, each of them to demise to him the said John Plummer their several and respective parts; or shares of and in the said messuage or tenement, hereditaments, and premises, subject as in the said indenture thereinafter contained ; it was witnessed, that, in pursuance of a licence for that purpose, granted from the lord of the manor of Vauxball, in the county of Surrey, and in consideration of the said sum of so to be laid out by the said John Plummer in manner before mentioned, and of the reuts:anrl convenants thereinafter contained, they the said John Crosse Crooke, John Elliscjn, and Heiiry Bates, and Sarah his wife, and John Henry Bates, did each and eyeryj of them, according to the part, share, and interest he, she, or they respectively had or might possess in the premises, demise, lease, set, arid to farm let unto the said Johnj Plummer, his executors or administrators, the said tenements and premises therein mentioned and particularly described, except as therein is cxcepted : To hold the sime unto the said John Plummer, his executors and administrators, from the 1C;M. & R. 119. SHEPHERD V. KEATLEY 1019 feast day of St. Michael the Archangel then last, for the term of fifty years from thence next ensuing, at the yearly rent of 501., in the proportions following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Turpin and Ahern's Contract
...2 Ch. 603. (2) 25 L. R. Ir. 307, 311. (3) [1902] 1 I. R. 7. (4) [1895] 1 Ch. 190. (5) 5 De G. & Sm. 520. (6) Kay, 550. (7) You. 1. (8) 1 C. M. & R. 117. (1) Kay, (2) 24 Ch. D. 11. (1) 24 Ch. D. 11. (1) In the Court of Appeal, before FitzGibbon, Walker, and Homles, L.JJ. (2) I. R. 6 C. L. 34......
-
Chism v Lipsett
...Carroll's ContractIR [1896] 1 I. R. 386, 390. Reid v. Shergold 10 Ves. 369. Scott v. AlvarezELR [1895] 2 Ch. 603. Shepherd v. KeatleyENR 1 C. M. & R. 117. Smith v. RobinsonELR 13 Ch. D. 148. Smith v. WhitmoreIR [1896] 1 I. R. 520. Stuart v. Kennedy 3 Ir. Jur. (O. S.) 305. Waddell v. WolfeEL......
-
Buchanan v Poppleton
...1844, and in the declaration of M ears, that the land-tax has been redeemed. Byles, Serjt., in reply, referred to Shepherd v. Keatley, 1 C. M. & R. 117, Sellick v. Trevor, 11 M. & W. 722, 728, and JeaJces v. White, 6 Exch. 873. : Cur. adv. vult. willes, J., now delivered the judgment of the......
-
Leathem v Allen
...Wilmot v. WilkinsonENR 6 B. & C. 506, 511. Freme v. WrightUNK 4 Mad. 364. Baxter v. ConollyENR 1 Jac. & W. 576. Shepherd v. KeatleyENR 1 Cr. M.& R. 117. Spratt v. JefferyENR 10 B. & C. 249; S. C. 5 Man. & Ry. 188. Duke v. Barnett 2 Coll. R. 337, 341. Treatise on Vendors 11th ed. p. 392. Sea......