Spratt against Jeffery
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1829 |
| Date | 01 January 1829 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 443
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 5 Man. & Ry. 188; 8 L. J. K. B. O. S. 114. Referred to, Souter v. Drake, 1834, 5 B. & Ad. 1002. Distinguished, Shepherd v. Keatley, 1834, 1 C. M. & R. 127. Commented on, Hume v. Bentley, 1852, 5 De G. & Sm. 525. Distinguished, Phillips v. Caldcleugh, 1868, L. R. 4 Q. B. 162. Commented on, Waddell v. Wolfe, 1874, L. R. 9 Q. B. 519. Not applied, Harnett v. Baker, 1875, L. R. 20 Eq. 55. Referred to, Best v. Hamand, 1879, 12 Ch. D. 5. Commented on, In re National Provincial Bank of England and Marsh, [1895] 1 Ch. 195.
spratt against jeffery. 1829. By contract A. agreed to sell to B. the two leases and good will in trade of a public house, arid shop adjoining, for the sum of 42501., " as he holds the same," for terms of twenty-eight years from midsummer next ensuing, at the annual rent therein mentioned, and B. agreed to accept a proper assignment of the said leases and premises as above described, without requiring the lessor's title; and upon payment of the said sum of 42501., A. agreed to execute an effectual assignment of the said leases, and deliver up possession of all the said premises: Held, that the true meaning of this agreement was, that the vendee was to purchase the two leases without enquiring into the title of the lessor, and could not refuse to complete his purchase on account of an objection to that title. [S. C. 5 Man. & Ry. 188 ; 8 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 114. Referred to, Souter v. Drake, 1834, 5 B. & Ad. 1002. Distinguished, Shepherd v. Keatley, 1834, 1 C. M. & R. 127. Commented on, Hume v. Bentley, 1852, 5 De Gr. & Sm. 525. Distinguished, Phillips v. Calddeugh, 1868, L. R. 4 Q. B. 162. Commented on, Waddell v. Wolfe, 1874, L. R. 9 Q. B. 519. Not applied, Harne.it v. Baker, 1875, L. R. 20 Eq. 55. Referred to, Best v. Hamand, 1879, 12 Ch. D. 5. Commented on, In re National Provincial Bank of England and Marsh, [1895] 1 Ch. 195.] This was an action of assumpsit tried before Lord Tenterden C.J. at the Middlesex sittings after Michaelmas term 1828, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff, for 2301. damages and costs of suit, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case: - On the 23d April 1828, the plaintiff and defendant entered into the following agreement: " William Jeifery of Newington Butts, Surrey, victualler, doth agree to sell unto William Spratt of Shadwell, the two leases and [250] good-will in trade, of the house and premises now occupied by him, known by the sign of the Rockingham Arms, and shop adjoining, situated at Newington Butts, in the parish of Saint Mary, in the county of Surry aforesaid, for the sum of 42501., as he holds the same, for the term of twenty-eight years from midsummer next ensuing, at the annual rent of 1261., and under fair and usual covenants only, except that the lessee is to insure and to keep the house as a tavern or coffee-house, and to be called the Rockingham Arms. And the said William Spratt doth hereby agree to accept a proper assignment of the said leases and premises as above described without requiring the lessor's title; and that he will pay unto the said William Jeffery, the said sum of 42501. for the same, also the amount at which the goods, fixtures, effects, and stock in trade shall be valued as aforesaid, together with the proportionate value of the unexpired term in the 444 SPRATT V. JEFFERY 10 B. & C. 251. licences, after deducting the sum of 2001. which has now been paid as a deposit, (the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged,) and take possession of the said house and premises on or before the 5th day of May next ensuing, at which time, upon payment of the several sums as aforesaid, he, the said William Jeffery, doth agree to execute an effectual assignment of the said leases, and deliver up possession of all the said premises except the shop which is underlet at will, and also the effects and stock in trade, and to assign over good and sufficient licences to the said William Spratt, also to repair or allow for the external damaged window, and pay or allow for all rent, taxes, gas, and outgoings up to the day of quitting possession." Shortly after the above agreement was executed, the [251] plaintiffs attorney received from the defendant's attorney, an abstract of the vendor's title to the premises in question, entitled, " Abstract of the Title of Mr. William Jeffery, to Leasehold Premises called the Kockingham Arms, in the Parish of St. Mary, Newington, in the County of Surry." The abstract set forth an indenture of lease, dated the 2d of March 1813, made between John Carter and Samuel Brandon therein described, as the then trustees of the will of Thomas Brandon deceased of the first part; Stephen Hall, on behalf of himself and his infant children, William Smith and Mary Ann his wife, Thomas Fleming and Harriet his wife, (which said Mary Ann Smith and Harriet Fleming were stated in such lease to be the only then surviving children of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palmer against Temple
...Lord Denman C.J., Patteson, Williams, and Coleridge Js. 9 AD. &E. 818. PALMER V. TEMPLE 1307 occasioned by himself. Spratt v. Jeffery (10 B. & C. 249), shews that a party who agrees to purchase, and makes a deposit, cannot recover it back if the other party baa been ready to perform his con......
-
Fennelly and Others v Anderson
...v. SimondsENR 1 Y. & C., C. C. 608. Dowling v. Maguire Ll. & G. temp. Plunk. 1. Freme v. WrightUNK 4 Mad. 364. Spratt v. JefferyENR 10 B. & C. 249. Molloy v. SterneUNK 1 Dru. & Wal. 585. Deverell v. Bolton 18 Ves. 505. Hawkins v. The Eastern Counties Railway 15 Jurist, 979. Clive v. Beaumon......
-
Duke v Barnett
...from setting up an objection to it, however valid : Freme v. Wright (4 Madd. 364), Wilmot v. Wilkinsm (6 B. & C. 506), Spratt v. Jeffrey (10 B. & C. 249). They also contended that the title in this case was perfectly good, as the parcels, if any, which were omitted from the release, were no......
-
Hall v Conder and Another
...cannot otherwise oblige the purchaser to complete the contract made for the purchase of the premises. [Cresswell, J. Spratt v. Jeffery, 10 B. & C. 249, 5 M. & B. 188, seems to be an authority against you. There, by contract, A. agreed to sell to B. the two leases and goodwill in trade of a ......