The Earl of Durham v Sir Francis Legard
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 July 1865 |
| Date | 14 July 1865 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 771
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 34 L. J. Ch. 589; 11 Jur. (N. S.) 706; 13 W. R. 959. See Connor v. Potts [1897], 1 Ir. R. 534; Rudd v. Lascelles [1900], 1 Ch. 820.
[611] the earl of durham v. sir francis legard. July 5, 14, 1865. [S. C. 34 L. J. Ch. 589; 11 Jur. (N. S.) 706 ; 13 W. R. 959. See Connor v. Potts [1897], I Ir. R. 534; Rudd v. Lascelles [1900], 1 Ch. 820.] The Plaintiff agreed to purchase an estate which, on the written contract, was, by mistake, stated to contain 21,750 acres ; it turned out that it contained only 11,814 acres. Held, that the purchaser was not entitled to specific performance with a proportionate abatement for the deficiency of acreage, but that he could only enforce the contract on payment of the full price, or rescind the contract. In 1862 the Plaintiff agreed to purchase an estate of the Defendant for 66,000. It was described in the written contract as the " Kidland Estate containing 21,750 acres." In the course of the investigation of the title, it turned out that the Kidland estate contained no more than 11,814 acres. In May 1863 the purchaser instituted this suit for the specific performance of the 772 EARL OF DURHAM V. SIR FRANCIS LEGARD 34BBAV.812. contract, on payment "of the purchase-money, less a proper compensation for the deficiency in quantity." The Defendant was willing either to perform the contract on receiving the full price stipulated or to cancel the contract. The Plaintiff stated, in his affidavit, that he purchased the estate under the impression that its contents was 22,000 acres or thereabouts, that he would not have purchased if the real area had been stated, and that he had been guided in the price given by the extent of the estate and not by the rental, especially as he regarded it as affording him shooting and fishing over a large area. On the other hand, on the part of the Defendant, it was shewn that the representation of the quantity was a bond, fide mistake of his agent, and the Defendant said that " throughout his negociation, he was, in deter-[612]-mining the value of and fixing the price he should ask for the estate, actuated solely by the consideration of the rental thereof, and upon which alone he had made his calculations." the attorney-general (Sir R. Palmer), Mr. Wickens and Mr. Batten, for the Plaintiff, argued that the " general rule of specific performance was that the purchaser shall have what the vendor can...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Corless v Sparling
...v. WaldronENR 2 Strange, 1064. Farrelly v. Anderson 1 Ir. Ch. R. 760. Mason v. Corder 2 Marshall, 336. Earl of Durham v. LegardENR 34 Beav. 611. Cordingley v. CheesesboroughENR 3 Giff. 496. Portman v. MillENR 2 Russ. 574. Whittemore v. WhittemoreELR L. R. 8 Eq. 603. Sherwin v. ShakespeareEN......
-
Connor v Potts
...3 Giff. 496. Corley's CaseUNK 23 L. R. Ir. 241. Dyas v. StaffordUNKUNK 7 L. R. Ir. 590; 9 L. R. Ir. 620. Earl of Durham v. LegardENR 34 Beav. 611. Hill v. Buckley 17 Ves. 394. In re HenleyELR 9 Ch. D. 469. In re Northumberland Avenue Hotel Company, LimitedELR 2 Times' L. R. 210; 33 Ch. D. [......
-
Specific Performance and Injunctions
...326; Martens v Burden (1974), 45 DLR (3d) 123 (Alta SCTD); Patel v Ali , above note 119. 149 Earl of Durham v Legard (1865), 34 Beav 611, 55 ER 771 (MR); Hyrski v Smith (1969), 5 DLR (3d) 385 (Ont HCJ). See Chapter 13, Section C. 150 Allen v Richardson (1879), 13 Ch D 524; Di Cenzo Construc......
-
Specific Performance and Injunctions
...v. Burden (1974), 45 D.L.R. (3d) 123 (Alta. S.C.T.D.); Patel v. Ali , above note 107. 137 Earl of Durham v. Legard (1865), 34 Beav. 611, 55 E.R. 771; Hyrski v. Smith (1969), 5 D.L.R. (3d) 385 (Ont. H.C.J.). See Chapter 13, section C. 138 Allen v. Richardson (1879), 13 Ch. D. 524; Di Cenzo C......