Murray v Parker
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 May 1854 |
| Date | 26 May 1854 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 367
ROLLS COURT.
[305] murray v. parker. May 26, 1854. To justify the Court in reforming an executed deed, it must appear that there has been a mistake common to both the contracting parties, and that the agreement has been carried into effect by the deed in a manner contrary to the intention of both. By an agreement in writing, A. agreed to take an under-lease from B., at a rent of 340, A. "paying all taxes, land tax and insurance." A lease was granted, reserving the rent of 340, stated to include the land tax. It had, however, been redeemed by the superior landlord. The lessee having refused to pay the amount of the land tax redeemed, the lease was ordered to be reformed by making him liable for the land tax, though redeemed. Held, also, that parol evidence was admissible to explain the meaning of the parties by " land tax." On reforming a lease, no costs were given to the Plaintiff, the lessor, because the suit had been occasioned by his error in not having the lease properly prepared. J. J. Murray, the Plaintiff, being lessee of a house and premises in the City of London, held of the Goldsmiths' Company, with an agreement for a renewal in June 1853, entered into negotiations with the Defendants, John and David Parker, for an under-lease. One of the terms proposed by the Plaintiff was the payment by the Defendants of 12, 8s. annually for land tax and insurance, to which the Defendants by letters agreed, but objected to other terms. Ultimately, a memorandum of agreement, dated 21st of June 1853, was drawn up arid signed, whereby it was agreed that the rent for the first six years of the term should be 340, and for the remainder 240 per annum, "the said John and David Parker payiny all taxes, land tax, and insurance," &c. On the 14th of July 1853 the Plaintiff obtained the renewal of his lease, the reddendum clause being as to part in these words, "yielding and paying" &c. "the yearly rent of 109, 2s., including 9, 2s. the land tax heretofore charged on the said premises, but which has been redeemed by the said company," and also the fire insurance premium, being about 3, 6s. annually. The Plaintiff afterwards, in pursuance of the contract, granted the Defendants an under-lease, dated 29th of September 1853, in respect of which the Defendants [306] were to pay 340 a year for the first six years and 240 for the residue of the term, " both which said reservations of rent include 9, 2s., being the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Charles Edward Porter and another v Robert Stokes (Personal Representative of the Estate of Walter Edward Stokes, deceased)
...by Smith, Francis, Jessel and Shaw (2012), Fowler v Fowler (1859) 4 De G & J 250, Irnham v Child (1781) 1 Bro C C 92), Murray v Parker (1864) 19 Beav 305, Crane v Hegeman-Harris Co. Inc [1939] 1 All ER 662, 664 and Earl v Hector Whaling Ltd [1961] 1 Lloyd's Rep 459, 470. She directed hers......
-
Bowen Investments Pty Ltd v Tabcorp Holdings Ltd
...at 452; Joscelyne v Nissen [1970] 2 QB 86 at 98. The classes of documents which may be rectified include leases: see Murray v Parker (1854) 19 Beav 305. 59 The applicant’s primary argument is that, at the time at which the lease was executed, the parties laboured under a common mistake that......
-
Clement Donovan (Attorney for Constance I. Hovis, Personal Representative of Edmund Gregory Haig Donovan) v Adina Whitrod
...and Shaw (2012) Jordan Publishing Limited 7 Munt v Beasley [2006] EWCA Civ. 370 8 (1859) 4 De G & J. 250; 45 E.R. 97 at page 106 9 (1864) 19 Beav. 305 10 (1859) 4 De G & J. 250; 45 E.R. 97 at page 106 11 (1939) 1 ALL E.R. 662 at 664 12 [1973] 1 ALL ER 132, [1972] 1 WLR 1397 13 Paragraph......
-
Young v Halahan
...v. SutcliffeENR 1 De G. & Sm. 609. Torrance v. BoltonELR L. R. 14 Eq. 124. Sells v. SellsENR 1 Dr. & Sm. 42. Murray v. PalmerENR 19 Beav. 305. Wright v. GoffENR 22 Beav. 214. Affidavits Form of — Admissibility in evidence ——— Vendor and purchaser — Rectification of purchase deed — State of ......