Manser v Back
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 1848 |
| Date | 11 February 1848 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 67 E.R. 1239
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Tamplin v. James, 1880, 15 Ch. D. 217; In re Hare and O'Moore's Contract [1901], 1 Ch. 96.
6 HARE, 443. MANSER V. BACK 1239 [443] manser ;. back. Jan. 17, 18, 19, 20, Feb. 11, 1848. [See Tamplin v. James, 1880, 15 Ch. D. 217; In re Hare and O'Moore's Contract [1901], 1 Ch. 96.] Premises were advertised to be sold according to certain printed particulars and conditions of sale. Before the sale took place several of the printed copies were altered by the vendor's solicitor, who introduced in writing a reservation of a right-of-way to other premises belonging to the vendor. Several of the altered copies of the particulars were laid on the table in the auction-room, without any remark with regard to the alteration, and an altered copy was delivered to the auctioneer, who read the same aloud before the biddings commenced; but the party who became the purchaser did not hear or notice the alteration. The contract was signed by the auctioneer (inadvertently), and by the purchaser, on a copy of the particulars of sale not containing the reservation. After the purchase-money was paid and possession given, the purchaser filed his bill for a specific performance of the contract by a conveyance from the vendor, without a reservation of the right-of-way ; and the bill was dismissed without costs. An authority given to an auctioneer to sell may be revoked by the vendor at any time before the sale, and such revocation is valid against parties dealing without knowledge of it; therefore, in a suit by a purchaser to enforce specific performance of a contract entered into by the auctioneer by mistake or inadvertence, for the sale of property, as to part of which-a right-of-way over the land sold-his authority had been revoked, it is competent to the Defendant to insist upon such revocation, and parol evidence is admissible in support of that defence. The vendors were owners of copyhold premises at Hoddesden, bounded on the west by the road from London to Ware, on the south by a lane called Conduit Lane, and on the north by premises called Whitley's. Part of these premises consisted of the Fox Inn, which adjoined the London and Ware road and Whitley's premises, and formed the north-western part of the premises belonging to the vendor. There was a right-of-way from Whitley's premises, along the back of the Fox Inn to Conduit Lane, passing through the lot, the subject of this suit. The vendors gave directions for the sale of the above premises, with the exception of the Fox public-house and a small house adjoining it, and particulars were prepared by the auctioneer, describing the lot (being Lot 11), and reserving Whitley's right-of-way. At the auction, oh the 30th of May 1844, the Plaintiff and one Warner became the purchasers; and on the evening of the same day memoranda of this purchase, written orl two copies of the particulars of sale, were signed, one by the Plaintiff for himself and Warner, and the other by the auctioneer. On the 7th of June two other memoranda of the contract were signed on similar copies of the particulars, the name of Warner being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dyas v Stafford
...& P. 238. Warner v. WillingtonENR 3 Drew. 523. Harris v. PepperellELR L. R. 5 Eq. 1. Tamplin v. JamesELR 15 Ch. D. 215. Manser v. BackENR 6 Hare 443. Webster v. CecilENR 30 Beav. 62. Collen v. WrightENR 7 El. & Bl. 301. Malins v. Freeman 2 Keene 25. Pierce v. CorfeELR L. R. 9 Q. B. 210. Hin......
-
The Longvale Brick and Lime Works, Ltd Between Olivia Nora Colquhoun on Behalf of Herself and All Others The Holders of First Mortgage Debentures of The Defendant Company, Plaintiff, and The Longvale Brick and Lime Works, Ltd, Defendants
...& c. Mail CompanyELR L. R. 2 Q. B. 580. Lee v. Rayson W. N. March 10, 1917, 86. Leslie v. TompsonENR 9 Hare, 268. Manser v. BackENR 6 Hare, 443. Re BanisterELR 12 Ch. D. 131, 141. Sanderson v. Walker 13 Ves. 601. Stone v. Godfrey 5 De G., M'N. & G. 76. Webster v. CecilENR 30 Beav. 62. Woods......
-
Nolan v Graves and Hamilton
...301, 303. (5) 89 L. T. Jo. 274. (6) 34 Ch. D. 367. (7) [1923] 2 Ch. 136. (8) [1924] A.C. 196. (1) 13 L. R. Ir. 304. (2) 7 Ves. 211. (3) 6 Hare, 443. (4) 15 Ves. 516. (5) 1 Ves. & B. 524. (6) 6 Ves. 334, n. (7) 1 Ves. & B. 375. (8) 6 Ves. 328. (9) [1923] 2 Ch. 136. (10) [1924] A. C. 196. (11......
-
Carroll v Keayes. Keayes v Carroll
...L. R. 9 Eq. 51. Hughes v. Jones 3 De G. F. & G. 307. Monro v. TaylorENR 8 Hare, 56. Gwynn v. Lethbridge 14 Ves. 585. Manser v. BackENR 6 Hare, 443. Watson v. MarstonENR 4 De G. M. & G. 230. Wood v. ScarthENR 2 K. & J. 42. Marquis of Townshend v. Stangroom 6 Ves. 328. Lehmann v. M'ArthurELR ......