Ramsbottom v Gosden
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 December 1812 |
| Date | 18 December 1812 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 35 E.R. 65
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Lord W. Gordon v. Marquis of Hertford, 1817, 2 Madd. 121; London & Birmingham Railway Company v. Winter, 1840, Cr. & Ph. 62.
[165] ramsbottom v. gosden. Bolls. June 29, Dec, 18, 1812. [See Lord W. Gordon v. Marquis of Hertford, 1817, 2 Madd. 121; London & Birmingham Railway Company v. Winter, 1840, Cr. & Ph. 62.] Construction of a Contract that a Reference of the Expences was confined to the Expence of the Conveyance: but the Evidence of the Attorney was admitted for the Defendant to prove the Intention of both Parties, according to verbal Instructions, that the Plaintiff, the Purchaser, should also pay the Expence of making out the Defendant's Title. The Bill in this Cause prayed the specific Performance of a Contract for the Sale of an Estate by the Defendant to the Plaintiff : the Question raised turning upon the following Terms of the Contract:- " And it is hereby farther agreed that he the said George Gosden will forthwith " make and deliver unto the said James Bamsbottom or his Solicitor an Abstract " of the Title of Mm the said George Gosden to the said Land : and will also deduce " a clear Title thereto and also that the said George Gosden or his Heirs and all other " necessary Parties shall and will on or before the 10th of May next at the Costs " and Charges of either or both of the said Parties hereto in such Proportions as " shall be determined by Robert Tebbott to whom the Decision of the same is hereby " referred execute proper Deeds of Conveyance for conveying and assuring the Fee-simple and Inheritance of the Premises unto the said James Ramsbottom " his Heirs or Assigns free from all Incumbrances," save a certain Mortgage. The Defendant by his Answer stated, that originally he had no Wish to sell; that on being applied to by Plaintiff he had so expressed himself; observing, that, if he did sell, he would have a certain Price per Acre ; and that he would not be at any Expence whatever ; but must have the clear and full Amount of the Purchase-money ; that the Plaintiff attempted to induce him to bear the Expences of making out his Title : but he refused ; that the Plaintiff afterwards called on the Defendant's Solicitor, and distinctly agreed to leave the Question of " the [166] said Expences " to the Decision of Tebbott; and gave Directions to have it so inserted in the Contract. The Defendant submitted to make a good Title at the Expence of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
L.L. Holdings Ltd v Hoad
...18 The case referred to in Halsbury's Laws supra to support the principle just stated is ( 1812 1 VES & B 165Ramsbottom v. Gosden 35 ENGLISH REPORTS 65 at pp.66–67). Now Ramsbottom does not support the proposition that oral evidence can be admitted to contradict an agreement under seal in e......
-
Clowes v Higginson
...in Savage v. Taylor (For. 234); and has been followed in many modern Cases : Woollam v. Hearn (7 Ves. 211), Ramsbottom v. Gosden (1 V. & B. 165. Winch v. W4nchesier, 1 V. & B. 375): was admitted by Lord Redesdale in Olinan v. Cooke (1 Sch. & LeFroy, 22); and is particularly illustrated in T......
-
William Neap v George Abbott
...Mason v. Armitage, 13 Vesey, 25; Higginson v. Clowes, 15 Vesey, 516; Flood v. Finlay, 2 Ball & Beatty, 9, 15; Ramsbottom v. Gosden, 1 Vesey & Beames, 165, 168; Clowes v. Higginson, Ibid. 524, 527; Howell v. George, 1 Haddock, 1 ; Lard W. Gordon v. Lord Hertford, 2 Maddock, 106, and Garrard ......
-
Lord Wm. Gordon and Ux. v Marquis of Hertford and Ux. and Others
...not separate bonds to that amount; and therefore, that the written agreement was mistakenly drawn. The case of Ramsbottom v. Gordon, (1 Ves. & Bea. 165) is expressly in point to shew that such evidence is admissible. If the evidence of Mr. Heywood he admissible, as we confidently contend it......