Leyland v Illingworth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 July 1860 |
| Date | 11 July 1860 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 45 E.R. 617
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. 2 L. T. 587; 8 W. R. 695. Distinguished, Cato v. Thompson, 1882, 9 Q. B. D. 616.
JDEO.P.*J.MS. LEYLAND V. ILLINGWORTH 617 248] leyland v. illingworth. Before the Lords Justices. July 4, 11, 1860. [S. C. 2 L. T. 587; 8 W. E. 695. Distinguished, Calo v. Thompson, 1882, 9 Q. B. D. 616.] A property situate in a town, and comprising a warehouse with a small steam-engine, was described in particulars of sale under a decree as " well supplied with water." The property was well supplied with water, but only from the waterworks of the borough, and by payment of water rates, there being no natural supply. The manufactories in the town were generally supplied with water from wells upon the properties themselves, though small steam-engines in warehouses frequently were not. Held, that there was a misdescription, and that a purchaser who purchased on the faith of the description in the particulars, without knowing the real state of the case, could not be compelled to complete his purchase without compensation. The application of the purchaser for compensation was refused with costs in the Court below, but on appeal he was held entitled to be paid his costs, both of the proceedings in the Court below and in Chambers, and his coats of the appeal motion. This was an appeal motion by a purchaser of property sold under the decree of the Court, seeking to be allowed compensation for an alleged misdescription in the particulars. The property consisted of a freehold house at Bradford, in Yorkshire, with stable and outbuildings, and of adjacent business premises, consisting of a counting-house, offices and warerooms, with a steam-engine, engine-house, boiler-house, &c., the steam-engine being a small one of six-horse power. The particulars contained the following statement:- " These premises are cellared throughout, are well supplied with water, and have recently been erected by Mr. Jessop regardless of expense." The llth condition provided that if any error or misstatement should appear in the particulars, it should not entitle the purchaser to be discharged from his purchase, but compensation was to be made, the amount to be settled by the Judge in Chambers. The Appellant Mr. Webster, who was a house-agent residing in the immediate neighbourhood of the property, [249] became the purchaser at ,1720. Very shortly after the sale he discovered that the only supply of water on the premises was from the Bradford Waterworks. A well had been sunk upon the property, but it appeared that it had no natural supply. From the evidence on the part of the purchaser it appeared that water rates to the amount of more than 20 a year would have to be paid for the supply of water necessary to keep the...
To continue reading
Request your trial