Pyrke v Waddingham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1852 |
| Date | 01 January 1852 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 68 E.R. 813
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Principles approved of, but the decision disapproved of and not followed under precisely similar circumstances, Mullings v. Trinder, 1870, L. R. 10 Eq. 449. See Palmer v. Locke, 1881, 18 Ch. D. 388.
Reports of OASES ADJUDGED in the HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY before the Right Hon. Sir GEORGE JAMES TURNER and Sir WILLIAM PAGE WOOD, Vice - Chancellors. By THOMAS HARE, of the Inner Temple, Esqr., Barrister-at-Law. Vol. X. 1852 to 1853 -15 & 16 Viet. 1855. [1] pyrkb v. waddingham. March 17, 18, June 29, 1852. [Principles approved of, but the decision disapproved of and not followed under precisely similar circumstances, Mullings v. Trinder, 1870, L. E. 10 Eq. 449. See Palmer v. Locke, 1881, 18 Ch. D. 388.] On a vendor's bill for specific performance, the opinion of the Court was much in favour of the title, the question on which turned on the construction of a particular will; but the Court, being unable to found that opinion upon any general rule of law, or upon reasoning so conclusive as to satisfy the Court that other competent persons might not entertain a different opinion, or that the purchaser taking the title might not be exposed to substantial and not merely idle litigation, refused to decree a specific performance. A doubtful title, which a purchaser will not be compelled to accept, is not only a title upon which the Court entertains doubts, but includes'also a title which, although the Court has a favourable opinion of it, yet may reasonably and fairly be questioned in the opinion of other competent persons; for the Court has no means of binding the question as against adverse claimants, or of indemnifying the purchaser, if its own opinion in favour of the title should turn out not to be well founded. If the doubts as to a title arise upon a question connected with the general law, the Court is to judge whether the general law on the point is or is not settled; and if it be not, or if the doubts as to the title may be affected by extrinsic circumstances, which neither the purchaser nor the Court can satisfactorily investigate, specific performance will be refused. The rule rests upon the principle that every purchaser is entitled to require a marketable title. It is the duty of the Court, on questions of title depending on the possibility of future rights arising, to consider the course which would be taken if the rights had actually arisen, and were in course of litigation. A marketable title is a title which, at all times, and under all circumstances, may be forced upon an unwilling purchaser. A vendor's bill for specific performance. The title was derived under the will of Thomas Pyrke, dated the 27th of February 1752, which, after directing his debts and funeral expenses to be paid within a year after his decease, providing for the confirmation of leases which he had made of parts of his Notgrove estate, bequeathing 813 814 PYRKE V. WADDINGHAM 10HABE.2. [2] some legacies, and giving to Priseilla Bromwich 40 a year for her life, to be paid out of his estate quarterly after his wife's death, but not before, he proceeded : " I give to my dear wife Dorothy, who I appoint executrix of this my last will and testament, all my manors, lands, tenements, goods and chattels, and stock of what nature soever, with all my ready money, and the interest of all securities for money, for the term of her natural life; and when she dies, her funeral expenses to be paid by my heir according to such directions as she shall give before her death or leave behind her in writing." "I give (after my wife's death) all my manors, lands, tenements and interest of all my money and seeurities for money-I mean only the interest of them -and chattels, to my nephew, Joseph Watts, for his life, with liberty to make a jointure of any part of the estate, and also to make leases of any part thereof not exceeding twenty-one years, reserving the best rent he can get for the same premises so leased, and having all usual covenants inserted in such leases on the lessees' part to be done and performed, and such lessee or lessees executing counterparts of such leases; and if the said Joseph Watts shall die, and leave one or more son or sons, I give my said estate to his eldest and every other sons, the eldest to take place before the younger, according to their priority of birth. If the said James Watts should happen to die and leave no son, but only one or more daughters, I give him power to charge the estate with 5000, and no more, for their provision; and if the said Joseph Watts shall die and leave no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barclays Bank Plc v Weeks Legg & Dean (A Firm)
...which the purchaser is bound to accept, is known as "a good marketable title". The meaning of the expression is well established. In Pyrke v Waddington (1853) 10 Hare 1 Turner V.-C. said at p. 8 "The rule rests upon this, that every purchaser is entitled to require a marketable title, by wh......
-
Belitza Marling Sagaray Silva v Replay Destinations (Bahamas) Ltd
...is bound to accept, is known as ‘a good marketable title’. The meaning of the expression is well established. In Pyrke v. Waddington (1852) 10 Hare 1 at 8, 68 ER 813 at 816 Turner V.C. said: ‘… the rule rests upon this, that every purchaser is entitled to require a marketable title; by whic......
-
Belitza Marling Sagaray Silva v Replay Destinations (Bah) Ltd
...Ltd v. Messier Dowty Inc [2018] UKPC 25 considered Central Bank of Ecuador v. Conticorp [2015] UKPC 11 considered Pryke v. Waddington, (1852) 68 ER 813 mentioned Roberts Realty Glinton v. Albacore Developments Ltd, [1988] BHS J. No. 69 considered Treco v. Shutley [1996] BHS J No. 123 cons......
-
Goldney v Crabb
...229); Forth v. Chapman (1 P. Wms. 664); Seaward v. Willock (5 East, 198); Darley v. Martin (16 Com. Bench Rep. 683); Pyrke v. Waddingham (10 Hare, 1); Harvey v. Towell (7 Hare, 231). Mr. R. Palmer and Mr. Whitbread, for the Defendant. The property being leasehold, the testator's niece took ......
-
Specific Performance and Injunctions
...152 Le Mesurier v Andrus , ibid . 153 Flight v Booth (1834), 1 Bing (NC) 370, 131 ER 1160 (CP). 154 Pyrke v Waddingham (1852), 10 Hare 1, 68 ER 813 (VC); Danby v Stewart (1979), 97 DLR (3d) 734 (Ont HCJ). 155 See, for example, Stefanovska v Kok (1990), 73 OR (2d) 368 (HCJ); Green v Kaufman ......