Vaughan v Hancock
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 November 1846 |
| Date | 05 November 1846 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 136 E.R. 307
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 16 L. J. C. P. 1.
vaughan v. hancock. Nov. 5, 1846. [S. C. 16 L. J. C. P. 1.] The plaintiff agreed to let a house to the defendant, and to sell him certain furniture and fixtures therein, and to make certain alterations and improvements in the house; and the defendant agreed to take the house, and to pay for the furniture and fixtures and alterations:-Held, that this was an agreement relating to an interest in land, within the fourth section of the statute of frauds. Assumpsit. The declaration stated, that in consideration that the plaintiff would let to the defendant, as yearly tenant, a certain messuage, &c., and would sell to the plaintiff, for a certain sum of money, certain furniture and fixtures then being in and upon the said messuage, and would make certain improvements and alterations therein, according to the desire and to [767] the approbation of the defendant, he the defendant then promised that he would become the tenant of the plaintiff, and would take the said furniture at a reasonable price, and would pay to the plaintiff a reasonable price for the said alterations and improvements : Averment, that the plaintiff was ready and willing to let the messuage, and then tendered the same to the defendant, and was then ready and willing to sell the said furniture and fixtures to the defendant, and did then make the said alterations and improvements in the said messuage, &c., the same amounting to the sum of 121. 10s.; but that the defendant would not then become the tenant, &c., nor take the said furniture and fixtures, or pay a reasonable price for the same, nor would he pay the said sum of 121. 10s., or any part thereof, for the said alterations and improvements. Plea, non assumpsit (a). The cause came on for trial before Erie, J., at the last Bristol assizes. The plaintiff sought to prove the contract alleged in the declaration by oral testimony : but it was objected on the part of the defendant, that, being a contract relating to lands, it could only be sustained by written proof; and the cases of The Earl of Falmouth v. Thomas (1 C. & M. 89) and Mechelen v. Wallace (7 Ad. & E. 49, 2 N. & P. 224) were cited. The learned judge nonsuited the plaintiff, giving him leave to move to enter a verdict for 121. 13s. 4d., if the court should be of opinion that the case was not within the fourth section of the statute of frauds. Crowder now moved...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rollerteam Ltd and Another v Riley
...1989 Act, so that (executory) contracts for short tenancies of that kind were indeed subject to their requirements ( Vaughan v Hancock (1846) 3 C.B. 766), and if the Plaintiff's submissions were correct that would have been equally true of the tenancies themselves, contractual in nature as ......
-
Savage v Canning
...Grimshaw v. LeggeENR 8 B. & C. 324. Mechelen v. Wallace 7 A. & E. 49, 55, 56. Buttermere v. HayesENR 5 M. & W. 456. Vaughan v. HancockENR 3 C. B. 766. Hodgson v. Johnson 1 E. Bl. & E. 689. Green v. SaddingtonENR 7 E. & B. 503. Mayfield v. WadsleyENR 3 B. & C. 357. Cocking v. WardENR 1 C. B.......
-
Jeakes and Another, Executors of Win Jeakes, Deceased, v White
...Cocking v Ward (1 C B 858), Imnun v titamp (1 Stark 12), L Addison on Contracts, !6 , Dart on Vend & Purch 92, 104, Vaarjhan v Hancock (3 C B 766), M'lvei v IhUMnhon (I M & Selw 557), find (Jitmngton v Rooh (2 M & W 248) Secondly, as to the fifth issue, there was reasonable evidence that Wi......
-
Lomax v Wilson
...the new rules to be strictly adhered to, otherwise there would in every case be an argument as to the propriety of equivalent expressions. 3C.B.766. VAUGHAN V. HANCOCK 307 Willes, in support of his rule. There is no double promise to pay the money mentioned in the second [766] count. If the......