Warner v Willington
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 April 1856 |
| Date | 24 April 1856 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 61 E.R. 1002
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 25 L. J. Ch. 662; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 433. Confirmed, Reuss v. Picksley, 1866, L. R. 1 Ex. 342. See Bourdillon v. Collins, 1871, 24 L. T. 346; Dickinson v. Dodds, 1876, 2 Ch. D. 470; Williams v. Jordan, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 520; Coombs v. Wilkes [1891], 3 Ch. 81; Filby v. Hounsell [1896], 2 Ch. 740.
Specific Performance. Contract. Statute of Frauds.
[523] waknek v. willington. April 17, 24, 1858. [S. C. 25 L. J. Ch. 662 ; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 433. Confirmed, Beuss v. Picksley, 1866, L. R. 1 Ex. 342. See Bourdillon v. Collins, 1871, 24 L. T. 346; Dickinson v. Dodds, 1876, 2 Ch. D. 470; Williams v. Jordan, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 520; Coombs v. mikes [1891], 3 Ch. 81; Filly v. Hounsell [1896], 2 Ch. 74*0.] Specific Performance. Contract. Statute of Frauds. A memorandum of agreement for a lease for twenty-one years was signed by the intended lessee, but not by the lessor, and named referees. Lessor's agents prepared a draft lease, and wrote to the lessee, saying they hoped on a certain day to have the agreement prepared and ready for inspection; to this the lessee replied by a letter making an appointment, and hoping all would be satisfactorily arranged. The jlessee refused to complete. Held, that there was an agreement sufficiently signed by the lessor, but that the agreement imported a proposal merely, and was not an unconditional agreement; and a demurrer to the lessor's bill was allowed. This was a demurrer. The bill stated that the Plaintiff was seised of certain real estate called Mortival's or Frog's Hall Farm, and he employed Messrs. Beadel & Sons, estate agents, as his agents for the purpose of letting it. "The Defendant being desirous of obtaining a lease of the said farm had an interview with the Plaintiff and Mr. W. Beadel, of the firm of Beadel & Sons, the Plaintiffs agents, on the 9th February 1856, in relation to the taking of the farm, and upon that occasion the terms of the proposed tenancy were fully discussed by the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the said Mr. Beadel, and a memorandum embodying such terms was written out by the said Mr. Beadel and signed by the Defendant, who added the names of his referees at the foot of the memorandum. " The memorandum referred to in the 3d paragraph of this bill Was in the words and figures following:-' Mortival's Farm, Takely. Kent 300 per annum, to commence from Mich. 1855. , Lease for twenty-one years, from Mich. 1855. Covenants to farm according to the five course system of husbandry. To have the [524] 3 DREWRY, 525. WARNER V. WILLINGTON' 1003 privilege of selling off hay, but not straw or roots, upon bringing back an equivalent either in good rotten dung or other artificial manure of equal value. To pay for the tillage, fallows and hay. The fixtures on farm, homestead, in the house and premises, and the iron hurdles, by valuation, according to the custom of the country. To keep and leave the premises in good tenantable repair, the landlord finding rough timber, bricks and lime. All other usual covenants to be contained and embodied in the lease, which is to be prepared and signed and the amount of valuation paid before entry. Signed, Joseph Willington, Dany Craig, Crickhowell, South Wales. I refer you to the undermentioned as to my capabilities and as to my capital. E. Carr Showne, Esq., M.D., Tarn worth; Mr. Charles Eowelift, Stowgumber, Dunster, Somerset; Mr. Eichard A. Clark; John Wilmshurst, solicitor, Warwick.'" Shortly after the signing of the said memorandum by the Defendant, the Plaintiff instructed his solicitors to prepare the draft lease. On the 14th February 1855 Messrs. Beadel & Sons, who were as before stated the lawfully constituted agents of the Plaintiff, wrote to the Defendant as follows :-" 25 Gresham Street, February 14, 1856.--Dear Sir,-We shall be obliged by your calling upon us in town on Monday next, when we shall hope to have the agreement for Mortival's Farm, Takeley, , prepared and ready for your inspection. Should Monday not be convenient to you, we shall be glad by your informing us upon what other day in the early part of the week you...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tiverton Estates Ltd v Wearwell Ltd
...couldbe enforced against him, but he could not enforce it against the other. The first of this line was an obiter dictum in 1856 in Warner v. Willington (1856) 3 Drewry 523 at page 532, which was approved in the next year by the Court of Common Pleas in Smith v. Neale (1857) 2 CB. No. 67 at......
-
Law v Jones
...of an agreement, is regarded as continuously inexistence, and is ultimately simultaneous with the formation of the contract: see Warner v. Willington (1856) 3 Drewry, at page 532, and Reuss v. Picksley, (1866)Law Reports 1 Exchequer, at page 350. I cannot think that in such cases the Court ......
-
Dyas v Stafford
...Durrell v. EvansENR 1 H. & C. 174. Schneider v. NorrisENR 2 M. & S. 286. Saunderson v. JacksonUNK 2 B. & P. 238. Warner v. WillingtonENR 3 Drew. 523. Harris v. PepperellELR L. R. 5 Eq. 1. Tamplin v. JamesELR 15 Ch. D. 215. Manser v. BackENR 6 Hare 443. Webster v. CecilENR 30 Beav. 62. Colle......
-
Smith v Neale
...must be bound : Lees v. Whitwmbe, 5 Bingh. 34, 2 M. & P. 86 ; Sykes v. Dixon, 9 Ad. & E. 693, 1 P. & D. 463. In Warner v. Willington, 3 Drewry, 523, 531, Kindersley, V. C., says: "A memorandum of agreement supposes that the two parties have verbally made an actual contract with each other; ......