Paterson v Long
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 November 1843 |
| Date | 19 November 1843 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 49 E.R. 548
ROLLS COURT
[186] paterson v. long. May 25, 1842. Two houses, held under one lease, were sold in separate lots, and it was stipulated that the purchasers should be parties to each other's assignment. Held, that the purchaser of Lot 2 was not a necessary party to a suit for specific performance against the purchaser of Lot 1. This cause came before the Court on general demurrer. Two houses, held under one lease at a rent of 8, were sold by auction, in separate lots, and by the conditions of sale it was stipulated that the purchasers of the two lots should be parties to each other's assignment, and covenant to pay the proportion of the rent allotted to each, and to indemnify each other against the same, and also give mutual powers of distress and entry, upon and over the premises purchased by each, as an indemnity against the payment of more than the clue proportion of the original rent of 8 payable by each purchaser. One of the houses comprised in Lot 1 was purchased by the Defendant Long, and the other by another person. Long having refused to complete his purchase on grounds which it is unnecessary to state, the vendor filed this bill against him alone for a specific performance. The bill charged that the purchaser of Lot 2 was ready and willing to concur in all proper assignments of Lot 1 to the Defendant. The Defendant filed a general demurrer. Mr. G. Turner and Mr. Barlow, in support of the demurrer, amongst other objections, insisted that the purchaser of Lot 2 ought to be made a party to the suit, as he was interested in the contract, and was bound to be a party to the assignment. [187] Mr. Pemberton and Mr. Beavan, contra, contended he was not a necessary party, and could not properly be made a party, as he was not a party to the Defendant's contract. (Wood v. White, 4 Myl. & Cr. 460.) the master of the eolls [Lord Langdale]. If there is to be a specific performance of the contract, the purchaser of Lot 2 will be bound to concur in the assignment, but is it necessary that he should be a party to all the litigation between the vendor and the purchaser of Lot 11 I think not; besides this, the bill alleges that he is, ready to concur. Although it might, by possibility, become necessary hereafter to compel him to join in the assignment, still, I see no reason for making him a party to a suit until that necessity arises. The demurrer must be overruled. (1) And see Ewen v. Bannerman, 2 Dow. & Cl. 74; Hill v. Burns, cited 2 Dow. & Cl. 101; Miller v. Rowan, 5 Cl. & Fin. 99 ; Powerscmirt v. Powerscmtrt, 1 Molloy, 616,
English Reports Citation: 49 E.R. 954
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 13 L. J. Ch. 1; 7 Jur. 1049; reported on another point, 5 Beav. 186.
[590] paterson v. long. Nov. 19, 1843. [S. C. 13 L. J. Ch. 1 ; 7 Jur. 1049; reported on another point, 5 Beav. 186.] Two houses, held under one lease, were sold separately to A. and B. The lease was produced and inspected at the sale by the purchasers' solicitors. The conditions of sale provided for the apportionment of the rent between the two purchasers, but did not notice covenants to insure, &c., and a proviso for re-entry on non-performance, contained in the lease. Held, that though A. might be evicted by the default of B., still he was, under the circumstances, bound to complete. Observations on special conditions of sale. BEAV.591. PATERSON V. LONG 9&5 Two houses were held under one lease from the Marquis of Westminster, at a ground rent of 8. The lease contained covenants to pay the rent, to keep insured, &c., and a proviso for re-entry on non-performance of any of the covenants. The property having become vested in the Plaintiff', as executor, he put the two leasehold houses up for sale in separate lots. The particulars of sale, after stating [591] the property aa " a leasehold estate held under the Marquis of Westminster for a term of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robins v Evans and Others
...he put chases, that is, whether he has ceitain rights upon it, or whether his rights ate in any mannei restricted " Paterson v. Long (6 Beav. 590) is also an authority that a person who contracts to purchase leasehold property does so with notice of the clauses m the lease In Smith v. Watts......
-
Stewart v The Marquis of Conyngham
...130. Bristow v. Wood 1 Col. 480. Vaughan v. MagillUNK 12 Ir. Eq. Rep. 200, 207. Walter v. MaundeENR 1 Jac. & W. 181. Paterson v. LongENR 6 Beav. 590. The Duke of Bedford v. The British Museum 2 M. & K. 552. Chilliner v. Chilliner 2 Ves. 528. Campbell v. Sandys 1 Sch. & Lef. 281. Thompson v.......
-
Spunner v Walsh
...2 Stark. 293. Whatman v. GibsonENR 9 Sim. 196. Whitton v. Peacock 2 Scott, 630. WEbb v. RussellENR 3 T. R. 393. Patteson v. LongENR 6 Beav. 590. Doe d. Ambler v. Woodbridge 9 B. & Cr. 476. Webb v. RussellENR 3 T. R. 393. Wortley v. Gregory 2 Y. & Jer. 536. Dignum v. Palmer Fox & Sm. 306. La......
-
Peacock v Penson
...must be dismissed as against him with costs. (See Tasker v. Small, 3 Myl. & Cr. 63 Wood v. White, 4 Myl. & Cr. 460; Paterson v. Long, 5 Beavan, 186.) The other parts require some consideration. It is an agreement for the sale of a very small lot of land, sold by auction with several other l......