Peers v Ceeley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 February 1852 |
| Date | 28 February 1852 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 517
ROLLS COURT
1BBEAV.JM. PEERS V. CEELEY 517 [209] peers v. ceeley. Feb. 28, 1852. A mortgagee had a power of sale, and of retaining his costs, charges, and expenses. He sold; but the purchaser resisted the completion, on the ground of misdescription. Being advised by counsel that the objection was untenable, he filed a bill for specific performance, which was dismissed with costs. Held, upon a redemption, that he could not charge the costs of the suit. In March 1838 some copyhold property at Black wall was mortgaged to the Plaintiff for £3400, with a power of sale; and it was agreed that the Plaintiff, out of the proceeds and the rents and profits, should, in the first place, retain all costs, charges, and expenses to be incurred and defrayed in or about the execution of any of the powers and trusts thereby created, or in anywise relating thereto, and, in the next place, the mortgage money and interest. The mortgagor became insolvent, and in April 1842 the Plaintiff attempted to sell the property, describing [210] it as a very valuable copyhold property, known as Ash ton's Wharf, consisting of superior waterside premises, first-rate wharf with jetty, &e.; and a printed plan was referred to, upon which was delineated a jetty projecting irom the front of the wharf into the Thames. The purchaser refused to complete, on the ground that the jetty was liable, at any time, to be removed by the Corporation of London. The Plaintiff thereupon instituted a suit for specific performance, Peers v. Lambert, which was dismissed with costs. (7 Beav. 546.) The Plaintiff filed the present claim for a foreclosure; and he now asked, that in taking the accounts, he might be allowed the costs of the attempted sale and of the iormer suit. In support of this claim, an affidavit was filed, which stated as follows :- That after the purchaser had made the objection to the title to the jetty, the facts were laid before Mr. Lewis Duval and Mr. John Baily for their opinions; and that Mr. Duval was of opinion that the purchaser was not entitled to rescind the contract for purchase, on the ground here suggested. He thought that it would be considered, that the purchaser did know, or should have known, what was the usual interest in a jetty on the banks of the river. Mr. John Baily gave the following opinion: " I strongly incline to the opinion, that the purchaser's oojection is not such as to enable him, on the ground...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
COURTNEY v RUMLEY. [v C. Court.]
...C. Court. COURTNEY and RUMLEY. Court-ney v. Parker 16 Ir. Ch. R. 320. Archbold v. ScullyENR 9 H. L. C. 330. Peers v. CeeleyENR 15 Beav. 209. Leedham v. ChawnerENR 4 K. & J. 458. O'Ferrall v. O'Ferrall Ll. & G. t. P. 79. Trustees' Expenses — Costs of Unsuccessful — Bona fides — Absence......
-
Burke v O'Connor
...v. Emory 5 Ves. 141. Ex parte MureENR 2 Cox, 63. Williams v. PriceENR 2 Sim. & St. 581. Dryden v. Frost 3 M. & Cr. 670. Pears v. CeeleyENR 15 Beav, 209. Ellison v. WrightENR 3 Russ. 458. Thornton v. Court 3 De Gex, M'N. & Gor. 293. Oxenham v. EllisENR 18 Beav. 593. 418 CHANCERY REPORTS. , T......