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
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 up, at the vendor's expense, upon any judgments that might be found against one of the parties through whom the vendor's title was derived ; to procure evidence of the deaths of certain other persons, and a covenant for the production of certain deeds, unless the originals were delivered up to the purchaser. Mr. G. Richards, in support of the petition, said that the object of the petition was that the Court might, by its summary jurisdiction over the solicitor, compel the performance of the undertaking. He admitted that he had not been able to find any instance of similar interference by Courts of Equity ; but said that, at law, the jurisdiction of the Courts over attornies was often exercised in such cases. [39] Mr. Wray, contrh,, was stopped by the Court. the vice-chancellor [Sir Anthony Hart]. If any order is marie, it must be for the performance of every one of the items in the undertaking. The nature of some of them is such that they may be impossible of performance; and then am I to throw...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
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......
-
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......