Madeley v Booth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 December 1848 |
| Date | 07 December 1848 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 64 E.R. 321
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Commented on, Camberwell and South London Building Society v. Holloway, 1879, 13 Ch. D. 754. Distinguished, Waring v. Scotland, 1888, 57 L. J. Ch. 1017. But see In re Beyfus and Masters's Contract, 1888, 39 Ch. D. 115.
[718] madeley v. booth, Dec. 7, 1848, [Commented on, Camberwell and South London Building Society'-v. Holloway, 1879, 13 Ch. D. 754. Distinguished, Waring v. Scotland, 1888, 57 L. J. Ch. 1017. But see In re Beyfus and Masters's Contract, 1888, 39 Ch. D. 115.] Messuages described in a particular of sale as held for the residue of a term of ninety-nine years from the 24th of June 1838, but not as being held by an original lease, were sold subject to conditions that the purchaser should not be entitled to call for the lessor's title, and that any error or misstatement of the term of years should not vitiate the sale, but should be the subject of compensation, under a provision for arbitration, authorising the arbitrator of either party to proceed in certain events 'ex parte. The title proved to be an under-lease, for a term less by three days than the term of ninety-nine years granted by the original lease. The vendor filed a bill to enforce specific performance, with compensation to an amount which had been assesed, in conformity with the conditions, by one arbitrator, nominated by the vendor, the purchaser having taken no part in the arbitration. The Court dismissed the bill with costs. Four leasehold messuages situate at Hockley, in the county of Warwick, stated in the particulars of sale to be held " for the residue of a term of ninety-nine years, which commenced on the 24th of June 1838," forming Lot 4, were, with other property of the Plaintiff, offered for sale by auction on the 30th of July 1847. V.-C. ix.-11 322 MADBLEY V. BOOTH 2 DE G. & SM. 719. The Defendant became the purchaser at the auction of [719] Lot 4, subject to the conditions of sale, among which were the following:- " 4th. That the vendor shall, on or before the 1st day of September next, at his own expense, make out and deliver to the purchaser of each lot, or his or her solicitor, an abstract of his title thereto, and shall deduce a good title thereto. And the purchaser of either of, the said lots shall not be entitled to call for the lessor's title; and the title to Lot 4 is hereby stipulated to commence with a lease of the said premises, dated the 26th day of September 1838." " 9th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v Coventon
...3, c. 142 ; Ayles v. Cox (16 Beav. 23); Sugden's Vendors (p. 23 (10th edit.)); Martin v. Cotter (3 Jones & Lat. 505); Mas Iky v. Booth (2 De G. & S. 718); Hall v. Smith (14 Ves. 433); Flight v. Booth (1 Bing. N. C. 370); Darlington v. Hamilton (Kay, 550, 557). July 11. the master of the eol......
-
Hayford v Criddle
...It is now clearly settled that a contract to sell a lease is not satisfied by the conveyance of an under-lease ; Madeley v. Booth (2 De G. & Sm. 718) ; Darlington v. Hamilton (Kay, 550). The breaches of the covenants to insure, &c., by Lothian would cause a forfeiture of the interest purcha......
-
Darlington v Hamilton
...because the rent and power of re-entry for breach of the covenants were apportioned. [Mr. Bolt, Q.C., referred to Madel&y v. Booth (2 De G. & S. 718).] [THE vice-chancellor. That was a misdescription of the term to be sold, which was in fact nine days shorter than it was stated to be. The o......
-
Geoghegan v Connolly
...Vaughan v. MagillUNK 12 Ir. Eq. Rep. 200, 207. Flight V. Booth 1 Bing., BT. C, 370. Law v. UrlwinENR 16 Sim, 377. Madeley v. BoothENR 2 De G. & Sm.718. Darlington v. HamiltonENR 1 Kay, 558. Fildes v. HookerENR 3 Madd. 194, 195. Taylor V MartindaleENR 1 Y. & C., C. C., 662, 663. Leathem v. A......