Scott v Hanson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 1829 |
| Date | 12 December 1829 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 39 E.R. 49
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 1 Sim., 13. See Smith v. Land and House Property Corporation, 1884, 28 Ch. D. 14.
scott v. hanson. Det,. 9, 11, 12 [1829]. [S. C. 1 Sim., 13. See Smith v. Land ami House Property Corporation, 1884, 28 Ch. D 14.] If land, generally reputed to be water meadow, is sold by the assignees of a bankrupt by the description of uncommonly rich water meadow, whereas in fact it is very imperfectly watered, this is not such a misrepresentation as will avoid the sale. The bill was filed in the year 1813, to compel the specific performance of a òcontract entered into in the year 1810, by which the Defendant had agreed to 50 SCOTT '! . HANSON 1 RUBS. & M. 129. purchase from the assignees of a bankrupt a piece of copyhold land, forming part of the bankrupt's estate, and described, in the particular of sale, as a lot consisting of fourteen acres of uncommonly rich water meadow. The Master by his report, dated in March 1824, found that the Plaintiffs had not established a clear title to the premises as water meadow, but that in all other respects a good title had been shewn. To this report cross exceptions were taken ; and on the argument of those exceptions (reported in 1 Sim., 13), Sir J. Leach, then Vice-Chancellor, ruled that the Plaintiffs were not bound to make out a title to the lauds as perfect water meadow, and that there was no valid objection to the specific performance upon that ground; but being of opinion that a good title in other respects had not been made out, he gave the vendors liberty to go again before the Master and tender farther-evidence on the subject. The Defendant appealed from that order. Mr. Knight and Mr. G-irdlestone, for the purchaser, stated that there were two. questions to be determined: [129] first, whether the Plaintiffs were bound to. shew that the description they had given of the lands was correct; and, secondly, whether, so long after the period of the contract, they had a right to further time for the purpose of making out their title. On the first point it was contended that to-describe lands as uncommonly rich water meadow was equivalent to calling them water meadow of the best quality, or uncommonly well-watered meadow : that so far from that description being applicable here, it was admitted that two acres were wholly incapable of being irrigated; and the remaining twelve were, at best, very imperfectly watered, and did not deserve the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Misrepresentation
...v Williams (1985), 21 DLR (4th) 557 (Man CA), leave to appeal to SCC refused (1986), 42 Man R (2d) 242n (SCC) . 7 Scott v Hanson (1829), 1 Russ & M 128, 39 ER 49 (Ch). 8 Dimmock v Hallett (1866), LR 2 Ch App 21. 9 Rasch v Horne , [1930] 3 DLR 647 (Man CA) [ Rasch v Horne ]. 10 Andrews v Hop......