Taylor v Needham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 February 1810 |
| Date | 10 February 1810 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 127 E.R. 1084
Common Pleas Division
1 084 TAYLOR 1% NEED:RANI 2 TAUNT. 278, stranger, but against the proprietor of the estate ; and that property continues until all the purposes are answered for which the abstract was delivered. LAWRENCE J. I am of the same opinion upon the construction of the proviso : it would be a monstrous construction if either party could vitiate the agreement by refusing to perform his part of it. The question then is, whether the purpose was answered for which this abstract was delivered ; for I admit it would be a mischievous thing, if accounts of a person's title could get abroad ; and therefore not only is the abstract to be returned, but no copy to be kept, lest it should be used for a mischievous purpose. But was the time come when the abstract was to be returned, all the purposes having been discharged for which it was delivered I Certainly not. The abstract is returned for a particular purpose ; the Plaintiff's attorney tells the Defendant that it is delivered to him for the purpose of his examining and answering the objections, and that it must be again restored to the purchaser ; and the Defendant accepts it on these terms. Having [278] then accepted it on these terms, he cannot afterwards say be will keep it on other terms. It is not enough for the Defendant to say he cannot remove the objections ; the purchaser has a right to a better proof that they cannot be removed than the Defendant's assertion. CHAMBRE J. As to the general property in the abstract, it is hard to say who may have it; while the contract is open, it is neither in the vendor nor in the vendee absolutely, but if the sale goes on, it is the property of the vendee ; if the sale is broken off, it is the property of the vendor. In the mean time the vendee has a temporary property, and a right to keep it, even if the title be rejected, until the dispute be finally settled, for his own justification, in order to shew on what ground he did reject the title ; but it is not necessary at present to go into the absolute property. This action can be sustained on the right of possession, which the Plaintiff clearly at this time had, therefore the rule for a nonsuit must be Discharged. TAYLOR V. NEEDHAM. Feb. 10, 1810. If the Plaintiff in covenant assigns as a breach, that the Defendant did not repair, a plea that the Defendant did not break his covenant is bad on special demurrer. Although the declaration concludes by averring that so the Defendant bath broken his covenant.But it would be good after verdict.An assignee of a lease by indenture is estopped by the deed which estops his assignorTherefore he cannot plead non cUaiisit.But if an estate be created by deed poll, ne loses, ne grants, ne charges, ne enfeoffa, ne dons, &c. are good pleas for a stranger to the deed. The Plaintiff declared that by indenture between himself and H. Saxelby, he had demis6d to Saxelby and his assigns a certain messuage, habendum for five years, [279] and 136 stated a covenant by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hopgood v Brown
...clearly in favour of the Defendant; and I accept the passage which Mr Holdsworth read from the Judgment of Chief Justice Mansfield in Taylor v. Needham. 2 Taunton, page 278, at page 282. It was a case of estoppel between lessor and lessee, but the principle is the same. The learned Chief Ju......
- Regent Oil Company Ltd v J. A. Gregory (Hatch End) Ltd
-
Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd
...Partridge v McIntosh & Sons Ltd (1933) 49 CLR 453 at 462–463; [1933] HCA 38 and the cases there cited. See also Taylor v Needham (1810) 2 Taunt 278 at 282–283 [ 127 ER 1084 at 55 Herman, Commentaries on the Law of Estoppel and Res Judicata, (1886), vol 1 at 148 (footnotes omitted). 56 Cf Ri......
-
Alan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley
...cited in argument I find the corollary of the principle I am endeavouring to express encapsulated in the observations of Mansfield CJ in Taylor v Neeham [1810] 2 Taunt. 278 at 282 "….. It would be a very odd in the law of any country, if A could take by any form of conveyance, a greater or ......
-
Estoppel in land law
...[1980] 1 W.L.R. 219 (if it was a proprietary estoppel that was in issue). 47 Voyce v. Voyce (1991) 62 P & CR 290. 48 Taylor v. Needham (1810) 2 Taunt 278; Duke of Beaufort v. Patrick (1853) 17 Beav. 60 (constructive notice); Mold v. Wheatcroft (1859) 27 Beav. 510 (constructive notice); Birm......