The Duke of Norfolk v Worthy
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 June 1808 |
| Date | 02 June 1808 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 977
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Referred to, Wright v. Wilson, 1832, 1 M. & Rob 207; Flight v Booth, 1834, 1 Bing. N. C. 370; In re Davis & Cavey, 188, 40 Ch D. 601. Applied, Taylor v. Bullen, 1850, 5 Ellis v. Goulton, [1893] 1 Q B 350
[337] Adjourned Sittings at Westminster. Thursday, June 2, 1808. the duke of norfolk v. worthy (A. as the agent of B. the owner of a landed estate, enters into an agreement for the sale of it with C., who appears to act on his own account, but in fact is the agent of D , and A. and C. bind themselves in a penalty for the performance of the agreement, whereupon C pays A. part of the purchase-money as a deposit Held that upon a breach of the conditions of sale on the part of the vendor, an action for money had and received lies at the suit of D. against B to recover back the deposit, without proof of the money being paid over by A to B If it is provided by conditions of sale, that any error or misstaternent in the particular shall not vitiate the sale, but that an allowance shall be made for it in the parehase-money, this will be extended only to any error or misstaternent inserted through ignorance or inadvertency, and the sale will still be vitiated by a mis-statement introduced with a view to raise the apparent value of the premises.) [Referred to, Wright v Wilson, 1832, 1 M. & Rob 207 ; Flight v Booth, 1834, 1 Bing. N. C. 370 ; In re Davis & Cavey, 1888, 40 Ch D. 601. Applied, Taylor v. BuEen, 1850, 5 Ex 779 ; Elhs v. Goulton, [1893] 1 Q B 350 ] Action for money had and received, to recover back a deposit upon the sale of an estate. Plea, the general issue. The estate in question, the property of the defendant, was advertised for sale as consisting of 486 acres of land, situate between London and Brighton, being about one mile from Horsham, four from Crawley, &c And among the conditions of sale was the following : " If through any mistake the premises should be improperly described, or any error or missfcatement be inserted in this particular, such error shall not vitiate the sale thereof, but the vendor or purchaser, as the case may happen, shall pay or allow a proportionate value according to the average of the whola purchase-money as a compensation either way " The sale was to have taken place by auction on the 21st of December last ; but on the 15th of the same month a written agreement was entered into between J Richardson on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burt v Claude Cousins & Company Ltd
...deposit, he must sue the vendor for it. He cannot sue the estate agent or solicitor. even though he still has it in his hands, see Duke of Norfolk v. Worth (1808) 1 Cary 337 at page 339 by Lord Ellen borough, Lord Chancellors Bamfield v. Shuttle worth (1840) 11 Ad. & El. 926; Ellis v. Goult......
-
Barrington v Lee
...his agent and be liable to repay it as held by his agent to the depositor's use? He can after contract when he has a right to it: Duke of Norfolk v. Worthy (1808) 1 Campbell 337; why not before, when he has not? If payment by the depositor to his agent is payment to him, why should it not b......
- Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson
- Christie v Robinson
-
Cases referred to in 1989 Part II
...446 Duches of Argyll v. Duke of Argyll (1967) Ch. 302, 332. .......................................... 447 Duke of Norfolk v. Worthy (1808) 1 Camp. 337 ............................................................. 213 Dumez (Nig.) Ltd. v. Patrick Waka Ogboli (1977) 2 S.C. 45. ....................
-
NOTES OF CASES
...vendor so that if the purchaser becomes entitled to its return he must sue the vendor and not the agent: Duke of Norfolk v. Worrh (1808) 1 Camp. 337; Bamford v. Shuffleworth (1840) 1 Ad. & Er. %?6; Ellis v. Goulfon [1893] 1 Q.B. 350. See also: Barrbigfon v. Lee [1971] 3 All E.R. 1231; Burr ......