Ward v Scott
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 December 1812 |
| Date | 03 December 1812 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1383
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
[284] Thursday, Dec. 3, 1812. ward v. scott. (Where a statute points out the particular manner in which a canal company shall sell and convey lands, and enacts that every such sale and conveyance shall be valid and effectual to all intents and purposes, this does not cure any defect in the title to lands so sold and conveyed by the company ) This was an action for money had and received against an auctioneer, to recover the sum of 98, being the amount of a deposit paid him by the plaintiff on the purchase of a piece of land near Paddington, from the Grand Junction Canal Company. The abstract handed over to the plaintiff began only in the year 1800, with a conveyance of the premises to the Grand Junction Canal Company, encumbered by a mortgage for 500 ; and it was allowed that as between two individuals, the tile would have been defective But it was contended, that this was cured by the Acts for establishing and regulating the Grand Junction Canal Company. Stat 33 Geo III. c 80 authorises the company to buy land for the making of the canal, and to lesell such parts as are not used for that purpose ; and declares that " such sales, conveyances, and assurances, shall be valid and effectual in law, to all intents and purposes whatsoever, any law, statute, usage, or custom, to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding " And stat 34 Geo. III. c. 24, after prescribing the mode m which, the company shall sell and convey to a purchaser, enacts, that every such sale and conveyance shall be valid and effectual. Garrow, S G., for the defendant, insisted, that as the piece...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flight v Booth
...in a material point, although occasioned by negligence only, not by fraud, will vitiate the contract of sale; Jones v. Edney (3 Campb. 284), Waring v. Hoggart (1 Ry. & Mood. 39), and Stewart v. Alliston (1 Mer. 26). In this state of discrepancy between the decided cases, we think it is, at ......
-
Fellowes against Clay, Clerk
...Gopeman v. Gallant (I P. Williams, 314, 320); Hex v. fierce (3 M. & S. 62): Henderson v. Bise (3 Stark. N. P. C. 158); Ward v. Scott (3 Campb. 284); Lord Hardwicke, cited in Mason v. Annitage (13 Ves. 25, 37); Rex v. Joliffe (2 B. & C. 54); Ward v. Shepherd (3 Price, 608); Clanrickard v. De......
-
Vaughan v Magill
...Pope v. Garland 4 Y. & Col. 394. Spunner v. WalshUNKUNK 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 386; S. C. 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 597, on appeal. Jones v. EdneyENR 3 Camp. 284. Flight v. BoothENR 1 Bing. N. C. 370; S. C. 1 Scott, 190. Flight v. Barton 3 M. & K. 282. Waring v. Hoggart Ry. & Moo. 39. Barton v. Lord Downes ......
-
Asia Commodity Traders Pte Ltd v Fook Hai Development Pte Ltd
...in a material point, although occasioned by negligence only, not by fraud, will vitiate the contract of sale; Jones v Edney (3 Campb 284), Waring v Hoggart (1 Ry & Mood 39), and Stewart v Alliston (1 Mer 26). In this state of discrepancy between the decided cases, we think it is, at all eve......