Wood v Machu
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 1846 |
| Date | 14 November 1846 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 67 E.R. 868
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 16 L. J. Ch. 21.
[158] wood v. machu. Nov. 12, 14, 1846. [S. G. 16 L. J. Ch. 21.] Eeference as to title, directed on motion after answer to a bill for specific performance by the vendor against the purchaser, notwithstanding the purchaser stated that his requisitions on the abstract had not been complied with, although the time for completion of the contract had long expired, and he had given notice of his. intention to rescind the contract. Objections to title mean such objections as can only be properly the subject of adjudication upon the investigation of the title ; and such are cases where the dispute is as to the application of the conditions of sale, the propriety or validity of the conditions themselves not being questioned. The purchaser cannot, owing merely to the delay of the vendor in complying with his requisitions, determine the contract without notice, or bring an action for his deposit before the termination of his notice, where time was not originally of the essence of the contract. Whether he can do so after the expiration of notice, where time has not been made of the essence of the contract, or, being of the essence of the contract, has been waived, depends upon the conduct of the vendor-after notice. Mr. Eomilly, on behalf of the Plaintiff, moved for the usual reference for title, on, a bill by the vendor for specific performance, and on the answer of the purchaser. [159] The estate was offered for sale by auction on the llth of December 1845.. By the conditions of sale the purchase was to be completed by the 25th of March 1846, and interest was to be paid on the purchase-money, if from any cause the payment was delayed beyond that time. The abstract was to be delivered within twenty-one days, and if no objections to the title were made within fourteen days after the delivery of the abstract, the title was to be deemed to be accepted. One of the conditions of sale contained special provisions with regard to the evidence which the purchaser should be entitled to require, and of which he should bear the expense. The abstract was delivered by the vendor, and the objections by the purchaser were made within the stipulated time. The answer stated that none of the requisitions had been satisfactorily complied with : that, on the 21st of February 1846, the. 5 HARE, 160. WOOD V. MACHU 869 Defendant's solicitor had sent a draft of a conveyance of the property to the vendor^ without prejudice to the requisitions then pending, that the draft had been returned on the 23d of February, approved, except in some unimportant particulars, accompanied by a letter; and that a correspondence between the solicitors of the vendor and purchaser respecting the title had continued until the 24th of March 1846. The answer stated that, on the 24th of March, the solicitor of the purchaser wrote to the solicitor of the vendor, to the effect that if the required evidence were not furnished within fifteen days from that date, his client would consider the contract at an end. Some further correspondence afterwards took place : and on the 3d of June the purchaser's solicitor again wrote to the solicitor of the vendor, stating the advice which he had received as to the evidence to which the purchaser was entitled, and concluding, "I must, therefore, again give you notice that, unless you evidence your client's pedigree within fourteen days from the date hereof, I [160] shall be under the necessity of commencing legal proceedings to recover back the deposit with interest and costs." On the 5th of June the purchaser's solicitor again wrote to the solicitor of the vendor, " I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 4th instant, in reply to mine of the 3d, to which I beg leave to refer; and although it may be unnecessary to give you any further or more formal notice on the subject, merely for the sake of regularity, I take leave to state that, unless you evidence your client's pedigree, in every respect required by my said letter, on or before the 20th of June instant, I shall treat the contract as abandoned, and bring an action to recover back the deposit-money, with interest and costs." Two other letters, one of the 12th and the other of the 15th of June, passed between the solicitors. The Defendant, by the answer, reserved to himself the right, if necessary, of taking further objections to the title. The purchaser commenced an action for the recovery of the deposit on the 18th of June ; and on the 3d of July the bill was filed by the vendor to restrain the action, and for specific performance of the contract. Sir Francis Simpkinson and Mr. W. Eudall opposed the motion. They submitted that this was a case in which a material question was raised on the liability of the Defendant to perform the contract; and the question of title did not therefore arise until that of contract had been determined : Page v. Adam (4 Beav. 269). the vice-chancellor [Sir James Wigram] (after stating the facts of the case, and holding that, supposing time to have been [161] originally of the essence of the contract, it was waived by the correspondence or dispute between the parties or their solicitors respecting the title, after the time fixed by the conditions of sale for the completion of the contract, namely, the 25th of March, and down to the month of June 1846)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leathem v Allen
...LEATHEM and ALLEN. Wood v. machuENR 5 Hare, 158. Freme v. WrightUNK 4 Mad. 364. Wilmot v. WilkinsonENR 6 B. & C. 506. Baxter v. ConollyENR 1 Jac. & W. 576. Spratt v. JefferyENR 10 B. & C. 249. Mortlock v. Buller 10 Ves. 306; 13 Ves. 77. Spunner v. WalshUNK 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 386; S. C. 11 Ibid......