Peart v Bushell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 August 1827 |
| Date | 06 August 1827 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 705
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Peart
and
Bushell. 1
Jurisdiction. Solicitor.
2 SIM. 38. PEART V. BUSHELL 705 ij j i ' .ò I /I/?- S"'-l' *---òò /Jf( jVif^ :3yt [38] peart v. bushell.(!) August 6, 1827. Jurisdiction. Solicitor. The Court will not exercise its summary jurisdiction to compel a vendor's solicitor to perform an undertaking, given by him at the sale, to do certain acts for clearing the title to the estate. This was a petition by a purchaser, who had paid the purchase-money for an estate, to compel the vendor's solicitor to perform an undertaking, which he had givei at the sale, to cause satisfaction to be entered...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
2 cases
-
Udall v Capri Lighting Ltd
...to conceive of a solicitor giving an undertaking which it is impossible to carry out. But there is a point to that effect in the case of Peart v. Bushell (1827) 2 Sin. 38." 10 After pointing out that Lord Sumner (as Mr. Justice Hamilton) had questioned the authority of the report and refuse......
-
Kanat Shaikhanovich Assaubayev and Others (Claimants v Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd (Defendant
...on which it is based and I doubt whether it is an accurate statement of the law. It appears to depend on the authority of Peart v. Bushell, 2 Sim. 38, and I agree with the criticism of that case made by Hamilton J. in United Mining and Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Becher [1910] 2 K.B. 296, 3......