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 FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
3 cases
-
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......
-
Peck v Beechey
...petition. the VrCE-CHAKCELLOR [Sir Anthony Hart]. Lord Eldon has expressed himself (1) Ex relatione. V.-C. it.-23 706 HALL V. JONES 2 SIM57 E.R. 705 HIGH COURT OF Beechey. 1 Jurisdiction. [40] peck v. beechey.(!) August 6, 1827. Jurisdiction.. The Court has no authority to advance part of t......