MacBryde v Weekes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 July 1856 |
| Date | 21 July 1856 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 1214
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 2 Jur. (N. S.) 918.
1214 MACBRYDE V. WEEKES 2SBEAV.B3S. [533] macbryde . weekes. July 19, 20, 21, 1856. [S. C. 2 Jur. (X. S.) 918.] In contracts for the lease of working mines, time, though not named, is, from the fluctuating nature of the property, considered as of the essence of the contract, and the intended lessee may therefore fix a reasonable time for completion, and, on the lessor's default, may rescind the contract. A. on the 4th of Oct. contracted to grant a mining lease to B., and no time was mentioned for completion. On the 10th of Dec. B. gave notice to A. that unless he completed the contract within a month, he would rescind the contract. Held, on A.'s default, that B. was justified in giving the notice, that the time was reasonable, and a bill by A. for specific performance was dismissed with costs, although there were matters essential for the completion, which did not depend on A. but on third parties. A purchaser, offering to perform his part of the contract, required, by notice, the vendor to complete within a month. Held, that the purchaser could not afterwards set up, as a defence to a suit for specific performance, misrepresentation of the vendor, of which he was aware at the time of giving the notice. A. agreed to grant a lease to B. After considerable delay on the part of A., B. gave A. notice, that unless he completed within a month, he would rescind the contract. The day before the expiration of the time thus limited, A. forwarded to B. the drafts, but he furnished no abstract nor shewed that he was in a situation to complete. B. rescinded the contract. Held, that it was effectual, and the Court dismissed A.'s bill for specific performance with costs. This was a suit for the specific performance of an agreement of a lease of a certain mining property. It was resisted, first, on the ground of misrepresentation; and secondly, that the Defendant, after due notice, had rescinded the contract. The agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant, dated the 4th October 1855, provided as follows: - " 1st. Mr. Macbryde agrees to grant a lease of his present freehold of about five and a half acres of mineral land, situate," &c., "for twenty-one years, to Mr. Weekes, renewable at the end of that time, if desired by Mr. Weekes. " 2d. Mr. Macbryde also agrees to purchase the adjoining field of about four acres now belonging to [534] Mr. Htrongitharm, and to grant a similar lease of it to Mr. Weekea " 3d. Mr. Macbryde further agrees to procure the assignment of the lease of about twelve acres of mineral land, now held by his brother James Macbryde, from Mr. Neville to Mr. Weekes. " 4th, Mr. Maobryde also agrees to sell to Mr. Weekes the whole of the plant, engines, shafts, tools, brick-kilns, offices, weighing-machines, &c., on the joint estates. " 5th. Mr. Macbryde will exercise all his influence to procure an extension of Mr. Neville's lease to twenty-one years, and to obtain a modification of the final levelling clause in that lease. "Next, Mr. Weekes agrees to pay 1500 for the lease of the twelve acres from Mr. Neville, the lease of nine and a half acres from Mr. Macbryde, the engines, plant, brick-kilns, buildings, &c., &c., in the following manner." It then provided for the payment by instalments, the first to be paid "on being put in possession legally." The agreement then went on to specify the royalties in minerals and surface rent which was to be paid by Mr. Weekes. The Plaintiff proceeded to purchase the field mentioned in the second clause, and on the 5th November 1855, Mr. Strongitharm (the owner of the field) agreed to sell it to the Plaintiff for 560. On the 12th of that month, a meeting took place between the Plaintiff and Mr. Neville, in the presence of the Defendant, when Mr. Neville, in consideration of 200, gave his consent in writing to the assignment to the Plaintiff of the lease mentioned in the third clause, or to the Defendant as [535] his nominee. Such lease contained a restriction against any assignment thereof by 3JBEAV. BM. MACBRYDE V. WEEKES 1215 the lessee without the written consent of the lessor. The Plaintiff thereupon gave Mr. Neville two promissory notes of 100 each in payment of the 200. Mr. Neville, however, refused to extend the term granted by the lease or to allow any modification of the clause referred to as "the levelling clause," and which required the lessee to level the land demised at the expiration of the term. The Plaintiff alleged that he was, at the date of the agreement, seised in fee-simple in possession of the land mentioned in the first clause, subject to a mortgage ; and it was thought desirable that a transfer of this mortgage should be effected previously to the completion of the agreement; that he proceeded to endeavour to effect such transfer, and that he was, in other respects, occupied in placing himself in a position to carry the aaid agreement into effect, when, on the 10th December 1855, he received the following notice from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Chang Fook Shen v Tan Suan Sim
-
British and Commonwealth Holdings Plc v Quadrex Holdings Inc.
...But in my judgment the principle should not be extended to cover cases where, in a real commercial sense, time is of the essence. 66In MacBryde v. Weeks (1856) 22 Beav. 533 there was a contract for the grant of a lease of mining property. The contract did not specify a date for completion. ......
-
Behzadi v Shaftesbury Hotels Ltd
...similar notices which he has waived, or that it is specially important to him to obtain early completion, are equally relevant facts: Macbryde v. Weekes (1856) 22 Beav. 533. Indeed, the dominant principle has always been that equity will only grant specific peformance if, under all the circ......
-
North Eastern Properties Ltd v Coleman & Quinn
...similar notices which he has waived, or that it is specially important to him to obtain early completion, are equally relevant facts: Macbryde v Weekes (1856) 22 Beav 533. Indeed, the dominant principle has always been that equity will only grant specific performance if, under all the circu......