William Neap v George Abbott
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 July 1838 |
| Date | 04 July 1838 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 47 E.R. 531
COURTS OF THE CHANCELLOR
[333] william neap v. georc;e abbott. L. C. July 4, 1838. Specific performance refused against seller contracting in error. The bill in this cause prayed a specific performance of the following agreement. Memorandum of an agreement made this 16th day of March 1835, between Mr. George 582 NEAP V. ABBOTT C. P. COOPBR 3S4. Abbott of Southwell, Westgate, of the one part, and William Neep of Southwell, Westgate, of the other part, as follows :-that the said George Abbott agrees to sell to the said William Neep all that garden which belongs to and is in the occupation of the said George Abbott, situated in Southwell, adjoining to Mr. Eichard Thompson on the west side, and north and east to the said George Abbott, and to the town street on the other side : and the said George Abbott agrees to deliver up to the said William Neep, or to whom he may appoint, all that garden thirteen yards in width and eighteen in length, or [334] thereabouts, to be measured : and the said William Neep agrees to pay to the said George Abbott, or whom he shall appoint at the rate of 7s. per square yard; the land being copyhold, it shall be delivered up by the said George Abbott to the said William Neep, or whom he shall appoint, at some Court day hereafter to be mentioned by the said parties : and the said George Abbott agrees to let the said William Neep or his workmen set up scaffolding to build or repair the building which is about to erected on the said land, and have the use of the water : and the said George Abbott agrees to deliver up the aforesaid land in six months from the date hereof, or sooner, if agreed on. Witness our hands the day and year aforesaid.-George Abbott, William Neep. The ground actually used as a garden was thirteen yards wide in the centre only, there being at the two extremities small buildings erected upon part of it about ten years previously. The Plaintiff, who had entered into the contract with the view of building a Methodist chapel, the width of which was to be about forty feet, and the length about fifty feet, alleged that it was the understanding that the buildings should be removed. The Defendant, on the other hand, swore that he never meant that the sites of the buildings should be comprised in the contract-that the buildings were indispensable to him in his trade, which was that of an innkeeper, and that to pull the same down and rebuild them...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connor v Potts
...Unreported. Lavery v. PursellELR 39 Ch. D. 508. Manser v. BackUNK 6 Ha. 443. Mc Kenzie v. HeskethELR 7 Ch. D. 675. Neap v. AbbottENR C. P. Cooper, 333. Phelps v. WhiteUNK 5 L. R. Ir. 318; 7 L. R. Ir. l60. Powell v. ElliottELR L. R. 10 Ch. 424. Re Bonham, Ex parte the Postmaster-GeneralELR 1......
-
Browne v Marquis of Sligo
...6 Har. 443. Calverty v. Williams 1 Ves. jun. 210. Jenkinson v. Pepys 1 Ves. 516. Clowes v. Higginson 1 Ves. & B. 524. Heap v. AbbottENR C. P. Coop. 333. CHANCERY REPORTS, BEING A SERIES OF CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY, COURT OF APPEAL 1N CHANCERY, golfs ourt, Yr......
-
Wood v Scarth
...and Mr. W. D. Lewis, for the Plaintiffs, cited Oalverley v. Williams (1 Ves. jun. 210), Malins v. Freeman (2 Keen, 25), Neap v. Abbott (C. P. Coop, 333), and Watson v. Marston (4 De G. Mac. & G. 230), upon the general law applicable to mistake as a defence to a suit for specific performance......
-
Manser v Back
...Williams (1 Ves. jun. 201; see nr (48) Id.), Jenkinson v. Pepys (ubi supra), Clowes v. Rigginsan (1 Ves. & Bea. 524), Neap v. Abbott (C. P. Cooper, 333; see the cases there collected). In the first three eases the Plaintiff was the author of the ambiguity; but, in the last, the vendor, the ......