Lake v Dean
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 June 1860 |
| Date | 06 June 1860 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 54 E.R. 499
ROLLS COURT
[607] lake v. dean. June 6, 1860. The Plaintiff agreed to sell the Defendant an orchard, described as being in the " occupation of L. P.," and that the purchaser should have " possession " on the day appointed for completion. Held, that "possession" did not mean "personal occupation," and a decree for specific performance was made against the Defendant, although the Plaintiff was unable, by reason of L. P.'s tenancy, to put him in actual occupation of the premises. In February 1860 the Plaintiff entered into a written agreement, whereby he agreed to sell to the Defendant Dean, who agreed to buy it, for the price of 2000, " all that pieee of orchard land situate in the parishes of Sittingbourne and Milton, in the county of Kent, and containing nine acres or thereabouts, as the same is iww in the occupation of Luke Phillips, and the fee-simple and inheritance thereof, free from all incumbrances except quit rents." And it was also agreed that the sale shall be subject to the following condition :- " The purchaser shall complete on the 6th day of April next, when he shall have possession, and all outgoings, up to that time, ahall be paid by the vendor. Should the purchase not be completed on that day, from any cause whatever, the purchaser shall pay interest at the rate of 4 per cent, upon his purchase-money, and take the rents of the property.'/ The Defendant refused to complete his purchase unless the Plaintiff would undertake to admit him into actual personal and corporeal possession of the premises at once; but this the Plaintiff admitted he was unable to do, inasmuch as the premises were, at the date of the agreement, and had ever since been, in the tenancy and occupation of Luke Phillips. The Defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Walsh v Alexander
-
Carroll v Keayes. Keayes v Carroll
...App. CARROLL and KEAYES. KEAYES and CARROLL. Harnett v. Yeilding 2 Sch. & Lef. 554. Lake v. DeanENR 28 Beav. 607. Allen v. AnthonyENR 1 Mer. 282. Taylor v. Stibhert 2 Ves. Jun. 437. Hiern v. Mill 13 Ves. 120. Daniels v. Davison 16 Ves. 249; 17 Ves. 433. James v. LichfieldELR L. R. 9 Eq. 51.......
-
The Irish Land Commission v Maquay, by Original Action: and Maquay v The Irish Land Commission, by Counterclaim
...62.) THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION and MAQUAY, BY ORIGINAL ACTION: AND MAQUAY and THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION, BY COUNTERCLAIM. Lake v. DeanENR 28 Beav. 607. Carroll v. Keayes Ir. R. S Eq. 97. Leggott v. Barrett 15 Ch. Div. 306. Palmer v. JohnsonELR 13 Q. B. Div. 351, 357. Ulster Bank v. WoolseyD......