Newton v Hunt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 January 1833 |
| Date | 09 January 1833 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 58 E.R. 430
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Reversion. Fraud. Vendor and Purchaser.
430: NEWTON V. HUNT SIM, Ml, [511] newton v. hunt. Nov. 16, 1832; Jan. 9, 1833. Eeversion. Fraud. Vendor and Purchaser. A sale by private contract of a reversionary interest in a sum of stock set aside on account of inadequacy of price, and the unjust and oppressive conduct of the purchaser. Undsr the decree in a cause of Newton v. Manning, 23,333, 6s. 8d. and 16,666, 13s. 4d. three per cents, had been transferred into the name of the Accountant-General, as a, fund for payment of annuities of 700 and 500 respectively to Harriet de Boinrille and John Collins, a lunatic, for their respective lives. The 23,333, 6s. 8d. three per cents, were also subject to the payment of 4000 amongst Mrs. De Boinyille's children after her death. The Plaintiff who attained 21 on the 6th of January 1823 was entitled to one-tenth of these sums of stock, subject to the payments before mentioned. In November 1826 he played at billiards with Charles Hunt, the Defendant's aon, at a billiard-room in Cork Street, belonging to C. Hunt, and lost to him 532 ; 32 of which he paid, and gave his note of hand payable three months afterdate for the remainder. In 1827 the Plaintiff was in great distress for want of money, and was arrested for debt. In order to relieve himself from his embarrassments he, in August of that year, caused bis interest in the two sums of stock to be put up for sale by Mr. Robins, an [512] auctioneer, in two lots; his interest in the 23,333, 6s. 8d. being Lot 1; and his interest in the 16,666, 13s. 4d. Lot 2. The particulars of sale stated that Mrs. De Boinville was in her 55th year, and in a precarious state of health, and that John Collins was in his 54th year, and a lunatic. At the auction Lot 1 was knocked down to the Defendant Samuel William Hunt for 700. There were several biddings for Lot 2. The highest was 640, which waa 10 less than the reserved price; and therefore that lot was bought in at 640. The Defendant had been introduced by his son to the Plaintiff at the auction ; and, i consequence, as he stated in his answer, of an earnest solicitation and request which he had received from the Plaintiff to become the purchaser of Lot 2, he wrote a note to the Plaintiff, dated 12th September 1827, in the following words :-"Mr. Hunt presents his compliments to Mr. Newton, and has received his proposal respecting Lot 2, which Mr. Hunt must decline. However, as Mr. Newton admits that 134 in reversion is worth more than 50, Mr. Hunt herewith proposes to buy Lot 2 according to that calculation, that is to say, Mr. Hunt will give 500 for it, which-is without making any deduction for the difference between Lot 1, the lady being in. bad health, and Lot 2, the gentleman being in good health; viz., as 50 is to 134,. so is 500 to 1333, reckoning consols at 80." The Plaintiff accepted the offer ; and on the 5th of October 1827 he executed a deed by which he assigned both the lots to the Defendant in consideration of 1200 expressed to be paid to him by the Defendant. Four days afterwards the deed was tendered to the Defendant to be delivered over to him on payment of 1060, being the remainder of the purchase-money for the lots,, after deducting the deposit paid on the [513] purchase of Lot 1. The Defendant, however, refused to pay his purchase-money, unless he was allowed to retain out of it the amount of the promissory note, which his son had indorsed to him in part satisfaction of a debt, and without notice of the circumstances connected therewith,, but upon an understanding that if the Defendant should be prevented from setting off the amount against his purchase-money, the note should be taken back by his son. The Plaintiff, accordingly, in November 1827, filed a bill against the Defendant to compel a specific performance of the contracts; and, on the 27th of December following, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff 1067, namely, 567 (being the residue of the purchase-money for Lot 1, after deducting the deposit, together with Defendants A. Stewart and Grace his wife, be deemed good service on the said Defendants." Lord Brougham, C., refused to grant an attachment on the siibpcuna served under the above order. 2 Myl. & Keen, 32. But see Cameron v. Cameron, Ibid. 289. 5 SIM. 814. NEWTON V. HUNT 431 interest on such, residue, from the 29th of September 1827, the day fixed by the conditions of sale for payment of the purchase-money), and 500...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v Bromley
...(4 Sim. 182); Dawx v. The Duke of Marlborough (Swan. 108, 139, 154); King v. Humid (2 Myl. & K. 456 ; 3 01. & Fin. 218); Newton v. Hunt (5 Sim. 511); The Earl of Aldbarough v. Trye (7 Cl. & Fin. 436); Walter v. Srailshaw (26 Beav. 161); Price v, Bernngton (3 Mac. & Gor. 486). May 30. the ma......