Jeakes and Another, Executors of Win Jeakes, Deceased, v White
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 June 1851 |
| Date | 01 June 1851 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 800
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 21 L J Ex 265 Discussed, Simmons v Haselline, 1858, 5 C B (N S.) 554, Stevens v Austin, 1861, 3 El & El 685 Referred to, Osborne v Rovlett, 1880, 13 Ch D 797
800 JEAKES V WHITE 6 EX 873 [873] jeakes and another, Executois of Win Jeakes, Deceased, v white July 1, 1851 -In an action to recover the expenses incurred by the plaintiff in investigating the defendant's title to mortgage certain lands, upon the ground that the defendant's title had turned out to be defective, the declaration stated, that, in consideiation the plaintiff would advance 20001 upoii the security of a mortgage of the land, upon the defendant's making out a good title to moitgage the s,ud lands to the plaintiff, the defendant promised the plaintiff to pay him the expenses to which he might be subjected in case the loan should go oft by reason of the defendant changing his views, or of the defeetiveness of the defendant's title The evidence of the defendant's title was us follows -The defendant, shoitly before the agreement with the plaintiff, had contiacted to purchase the premises of one W E , who claimed as heir-at-law ex parte materna to one B H , the peison last seised J H , the father of B H , mauied E E , and died in 1787, aged 59, and devised the property to his son B H and his two daughters, and, after then death, to B H in fee The daughteis both died, unmaiiied, before B H , who died a bachelor, in 1839 In order to negative the exrstence of any heirs ex paite paterna, depositions in a Chancery suit of E v E, in 1843, had been foiwaided to the plaintiff, 111 which the deponents stated that they were well acquainted, with B H, who had told them that " he had no relation left" And the deponents stated, that they believed B H had no relation left, on his father's side, living at the time of his death It further appealed, that two issues had been directed in the same suit, in which both parties claimed the pioperty as heir to B H ex paite materna, and that the jury had found, upon two occasions, (the cause having been tried twice), hist, that B H did not leave any hen ex parte paterria, and, secondly, that the plaintiff in that suit, (W E, from whom the defendant claimed), was the heir-at-law of B H ex paite mater na A statutoiy declaration had also been furnished to the plaintiff, in which the declarant stated, that B H and his sisteis had told him, on several occasions, that they had no relations whatever on their fathei's side, and that they had often heard therr father declare that he had no relations whatever, but that he was the last of his family -Held, first, that the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant was riot within the 4th section of the Statute of Frauds, and, secondly, per Pollock, C B , Alderson, B, and Pratt, B , that the defendant had not made out a good title to the land, for that by "a good title" was to be nndeistood such a title as a Court of Chanceiy would adopt as a sufficient ground for compelling specific pei for mance, and such a title as would be a good answer to an action of ejectment by any claimant, dissentiente Martin, B , who held that it was sufficient to establish a legal title in point of fact [S C 21 L J Ex 265 Discussed, Simmons v Haselhne, 1858, 5 C B (N S.) 554 , Stevens v Austin, 1861, 3 El & El 685 Referred, to, OJiorne v Itwlett, 1880, 13 Ch D 797] Assumpsit The declatation stated that, in the lifetime of William Jeakes, in consideration that W Jeakes promised the defendant to lend him 20001 upon the security of a moitgage of certain lands, upon the defendant making out a good title to moitgage the said lands to the said W Jeakes, the defendant promised W Jeakes to pay the expenses to which he W Jeakes might be subjected, in case the loan should go off by reason of the defendant changing his views, or of the defeetiveness of the defendant's title Averment, that, although the said W Jeakes, until the loan went off, was always ready and willing to lend the defendant the said sum on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cullen v O'Meara and Another
...BlakeENR 4 Bing. N. C. 463, 477. Governors of St. Thomas's Hospital v. Charing Cross Railway Company 30 L. J. Ch. 395. Jeakes v. WhiteENR 6 Ex. 873. Simmons v. HazeltineENR 5 C. B. N. S. 554. Stevens v. Austen 3 Ell. & Ell. 685. Boyman v. GutchENR 7 Bing. 379. Attorney-General v. WarrenENR ......
-
Stevens against Austen
...for the Court to consider was, whether the defendant had or had not a legal title to convey to a purchaser. But in Jeakes v. White (6 Exch. 873), which was followed in Simmons v. Heseltine (5 C. B. N. S. 554), it was said by the majority of the Court of Exchequer that, whore a question aris......
-
Cheok Doris v Commissioner of Stamp Duties
...The court rejected this submission and held that the cases cited (which included In re Spollon and Long’s Contract, Jeakes v White (1851) 6 Ex 873; 155 ER 800 (“Jeakes v White”) and Manning v Turner and Another [1975] 1 WLR 91) were not applicable and that generalised definitions of “good t......
-
Roseal Services Ltd v Challis, Clarke and Reid
... ... another date for completion after initial date had passed ... by any third parties: See, for example, Jeakes and Anor v. White (1851) 6 Exch. 873 at 881, ... the Estate of Glenfield Da Costa Stade, Deceased) et al (Unreported) Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2006, ... ...