Sneesby v Thorne
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 July 1855 |
| Date | 13 July 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 44 E.R. 156
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. 1 Jur. (N. S.), 1058; 3 W. R. 605. See Naylor v. Goodall, 1877, 47 L. J. Ch. 56.
156 SNEESBY V. THORNE 7 DE 0. M. & G. 399. [399] sneesby v. thorne. Before the Lords Justices. July 12, 13, 1855. [S. C. 1 Jur. (N. S.), 1058; 3 W. E. 605. See Naylvr v. Goodall, 1877, 47 L. J. Ch. 56.] One of two executors, erroneously believing that he was acting with the authority of the other, contracted to sell a leasehold house, part of the testator's estate. Held, that the purchaser could not enforce a specific performance of the contract. Whether he could have done so if the executor had been under no misapprehension, qiuere. This was an appeal from the dismissal by Vice-Chancellor Wood of a bill for specific performance filed by a purchaser of a leasehold house. The agreement in question was dated the 18th of August 1852, and was expressed to be made between the Defendants William Thome and Joshua Smith, described as executors of the late Thomas Turner, of Sheffield, deceased, of the one part, and the Plaintiff Henry Sneesby of the other part, and it was signed by Mr. Smith on behalf of himself and the other Defendant. It expressed that the Defendants agreed to sell to the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff agreed to purchase for £1550, for the residue of the several terms then imexpired therein, certain leasehold pieces of ground, messuages and premises in Sheffield Park. The Plaintiff had paid a deposit of £155 to Mr. Chambers, the solicitor of the Defendants, who sent to the Plaintiff an abstract of the title of the Defendants as executors of one Thomas Turner, deceased, of whose estate the property formed part. The Plaintiff accepted the title, was let into possession, and by his bill stated that he had laid out various sums of money in improvements. The Defendants, however, refused to complete on the ground that the contract was entered into by the Defendant Joshua Smith without the authority or assent of [400] the Defendant William Thome, but under a misapprehension that he had such authority. The Plaintiff then instituted this suit, charging by his bill that, so far as authority or assent might be necessary, the Defendant Joshua Smith acted as the authorized agent of the Defendant William Thorne, and that Mr. Chambers, the solicitor, acted as the authorized agent of both the Defendants. The bill also charged that the Defendant William Thorne, who had chiefly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee Peter Michael v Tacplus Property Services Pte Ltd
...[1975] Ch 1 (refd) Hudson v Hudson (1737) 1 Atk 460; 26 ER 292 (folld) Smith v Everett (1859) 29 LJ Ch 236 (refd) Sneesby v Thorne (1855) 7 De G M & G 399; 44 ER 156 (refd) Stanley v Bernes (1830) 1 Hagg Ecc 221; 162 ER 564 (folld) Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61, 1994 Rev Ed)s......
- Colyton Investments Pty Ltd v Mcsorley