Morse v Merest
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 March 1821 |
| Date | 05 March 1821 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 56 E.R. 999
COURT OF THE VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND
See Richardson v. Smith, 1870, L. R. 5 Ch. 650, n.
[26] morse v. merest. March 5, 1821. [See Richardson v. Smith, 1870, L. R. 5 Ch. 650, n.] Where there is a contract to sell at a valuation by A. B. and C. the Court will compel the vendor to permit the valuation. The time of valuation is of the essence of the contract, but the Defendant cannot take advantage of it, if he improperly occasion the delay. The Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a written agreement for sale by the Defendant to the Plaintiff of a considerable estate at twenty-five years' purchase, on an annual value to be set by A., B. and C., three persons named in the agreement, on or before a certain day. [27] The valuation had not been made accordingly ; but it appeared in evidence that the Defendant had prevented the valuation being made on or before the day named. Mr. Trower, Mr. Bell and Mr. Roupell, for the Plaintiff', in the course of their argument cited Milnes v. Geery (14 Ves. 400), and a dictum in Couth v. Jackson (6 Ves. 12). Mr. Home and Mr. Girdleston, for the Defendant, cited Crawsliay v. Collins (1 Swan. 40). the vice-chancellor [Sir John Leach] held that in the case of a reference time was as essential in equity as at law ; but that in equity a Defendant was not permitted to set up a legal defence which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sudbrook Trading Estate Ltd v Eggleton
...was another case in which the machinery for fixing the price agreed between the parties failed without any default on either side. 13 In Morse v. Merest, (1821) 6 Maddock & Geldart's Reports 26, there was a contract for sale of an estate at twenty-five years' purchase based on an annual val......