Rich v Jackson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 February 1794 |
| Date | 26 February 1794 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 29 E.R. 1017
LINCOLN'S INN HALL
[514] rich against jackson. Lincoln's Inn Hall, Itth & 26th Feb. [1794]. Parol evidence not admissible [in support of a bill for specific performance] to prove from conversations before and at the time of signing an agreement for a lease, that the intent of the parties was apparent from the memorandum, though the same was written by the lessee, and the words " clear of all taxes " (which was the purport of the conversation) were omitted in the memorandum.(l) [Vide the judgment in this case fully, 6 Ves. 334, note.] The bill stated, that William Stiles, since deceased, being possessed of certain premises in Fleet Street, in 1791, William Jackson, the defendant's late husband, entered' into a treaty with him for the lease thereof, and in a conversation between them on the subject, offered him 80 guineas a year for the same, and that he William Jackson would pay all the taxes thereon, which Stiles agreed to accept. That Stiles being then in a bad state of health at Tooting, Jackson, in September, in that year, went thither, and it having been mentioned by Stiles and Jackson, in the presence of witnesses, that Stiles was to receive 80 guineas a year, for the premises, clear of all taxes, Jackson drew up a memorandum in his own hand-writing, in which (after the usual introductory words) were the following, Mr. William Stiles doth agree to let and grant a lease for 21 years, to be reckoned from Michaelmas 1791, of (the premises) on the aforesaid William Jackson's paying to the aforesaid William Stiles 84 per annum, as follows (that is to say) 21 for every quarter, and the said William Jackson doth agree to pay the said William Stiles, his heirs, executors, and administrators, the aforesaid sum of 84 per annum, to be paid quarterly as aforesaid," which agreement was signed by Stiles and Jackson, and attested by Nathaniel Seager, who was a witness in the cause. That before any rent became due, Jackson wrote to Stiles's attorney, in order that a proper lease might be prepared of the premises, but the same was omitted to be done, and upon the 21st of November following, and before any lease was prepared, Stiles died, having made his will, whereby he gave the premises (int. al.) to Sir. Thomas Whitehead, who in February 1792, agreed with the plaintiff for the purchase thereof, and the same were properly conveyed to the plaintiff. That the plaintiff was at the time of the conveyance to him acquainted with-the. verbal and written agreement between Stiles and Jackson. That Whitehead having given notice to Jackson, that the future rents would be payable to the plaintiffs ; he obtained from [515] Jackson, a copy of the written agreement, from whence the plaintiff's attorney prepared a lease, containing the usual covenants, with a reservation of rent, at 84 a-year, clear of all taxes whatever, which was sent to Jackson. 1018 KICH V. JACKSON 4 BRO, C. C. 516. It appeared by the answer, that Jackson refused this lease, and caused a lease to be drawn on the terms of paying 84 per annum without the words clear of taxes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pym v Blackburn
...v. Col-man, Bitnb. 65. Lord Irnham v. Child, 1 Bro. C. C. 92. Hare v. Shearwood, 3 Bro. C. C. 168; 1 Ves. ;ttm..402. Rich v. Jackson, 4 Bro. C. C. 514; 6 Ves. 334, n. Rosamond v. Lord Milsington, where Lord Kenyan, when Master of the Rolls, refused parol evidence, that an annuity was to be ......
-
Woollam v Hearn
...might have done so, if the parties had been reversed. Rich v. Jackson was determined upon the ground, that it was not a case of fraud. (4 Bro. C. C. 514, 6 Ves, 334, in a note to the Marquis Townshend v. Stangroom, where all these cases are fully discussed. See also the note, 3 Ves. 38, 9.)......
-
Murray v Parker
...were strangers to the arrangements between the Plaintiffs and their lessors, and in nowise bound l y it. They cited Rich v. Jackson (4 Bro. C. C. 514); Brougham v. Squire (1 Drew. 151); Dames v. Fittm (2 Dr. & War. 225). [308] the master OF the rolls [Sir John Eomilly]. In matters of mistak......
-
Murphy v Taylor
...305, 307. Irnham v. ChildENR 1 Bro. C. C. 92. Portmore v. MorrisENR 2 Bro. C. C. 119. Lawson v. LaudeENR 1 Dick. 346. Rich v. JacksonENR 4 Bro. C. C. 514. Clowes v. HigginsonENR 1 V. & B. 524. Higginson v. Clowes 15 Ves. 516. Lord Townsend v. Stangroom 6 Ves. 328. Joynes v. StathamENR 3 Atk......