Wood v Scarth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 November 1855 |
| Date | 12 November 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 69 E.R. 682
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 1 Jur. (N. S.) 1107; 4 W. R. 31. See Shardlow v. Cotterell, 1881, 18 Ch. D. 291; 20 Ch. D. 90.
Vendor and Purchaser. Specific Performance. Defence. Mistake. Evidence.
[33] wood*). scarth. Nov. 9,.12, 1855. [S. C. 1 Jur. (N. S.) 1107 ; 4 W. R. 31. See Shardlow v. Cotterett, 1881, 18 Ch. D. 291; 20 Ch. D. 90.] Vendor and Purchaser. Specific Performance. Defence. Mistake. Evidence. The Defendant, being the owner of a public-house, wrote to the Plaintiffs, who were a firm of brewers, and offered it to them on lease, at a certain rent, and begged to be informed, at their earliest convenience, if the offer suited them, " as I am giving all the brewers who have left cards the offer in rotation." Subsequently a clerk of the firm met the Defendant in the premises, and discussed the terms of the lease ; and afterwards one of the Plaintiffs wrote to the Defendant, " I have viewed the premises, having had my clerk's report, and we are willing to take them of you." Held-1. That such letters constituted a valid agreement for a lease. 2. That, prima facie, the terms on which the lease was to be granted must be taken to be those expressed in the first letter. 3. That the Defendant was at liberty to resist a suit for specific performance of such agreement, by proving that he had made a mistake in stating the terms for the lease in the first letter. 4. That such mistake was well proved in this case, by shewing that the Defendant had, previously to writing this letter to the Plaintiffs, offered the premises to other brewers, upon terms which included the stipulation which he stated had been omitted in such letter by mistake : because such previous offer must be taken to be " the offer " which he stated in such letter that he was giving to the applicants in rotation. Held, also, that want of memory and inaccuracy, on the part of the Defendant, only affected the credibility of his evidence, and did not prejudice his right to relief, as the mistake was clearly proved by other evidence. The Defendant, Scarth, being the owner of a newly-erected messuage, intended for a public-house, to be called the " Quill," and knowing that the Plaintiffs, who were a firm of brewers, were desirous to take a lease of it, wrote to them as follows :- "Putney, 8th July 1853.-Gentlemen,-The terms for the intended new public- house at Putney are 30 yearly rent to Lady Day next, and from that time 63, on a lease of twenty-five years, to commence from the next quarter day after obtaining the license. There will be no difficulty about Mr. Young: a neighbouring proprietor is wholly in my interest; and I have at ground-rent and rack rent one hundred houses near it. Pray let me know if it suits you, at your earliest convenience, as I am giving all the brewers who left cards the offer in rotation ; and I am going to my place in Hants in the middle of the week. I am the landlord of the Swan at Walham [34] Green, which was in your trade many years, and which you may have again on terms; the tenant only holds at will.-I remain, Gents., your most obedient servant, " Messrs. Wood & Co." " heney scarth." 2K.&J.35. WOOD V. SCAETH 683 After having received the last-mentioned letter the Plaintiff, Wood, answered as follows :- " Artillery Brewery, Westminster, 9th July 1853.-Dear Sir,-I have been so very busy that I must, for a day or two, claim your indulgence. I will endeavour to see the property on Monday, and let you know. Will- you say some day when you are in town, that I can see you; and, perhaps, we could arrange about the Swan also ?- Yours obediently, " J. C. wood." " H. Scarth, Esq., Putney." The Defendant replied :- "Putney, 10th July 1853.-Dear Sir,-I shall leave for the country this week, but would go to London late to-morrow, if you could send one of your gentlemen here. I will not leave Putney before one o'clock; I think an interview might much facilitate our business. I will be at the last Post Office, near the railway station, from eleven until one o'clock on Monday.-I remain, your most obedient servant, "J. C. Wood, Esq., brewer." " henry scarth." Accordingly the Plaintiff, Wood, by letter, dated the 12th of July, appointed Wednesday, the 13th of the said month of July, as the time for the Plaintiffs' clerk to view and report upon the premises proposed to be leased...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Perrylease Ltd v Imecar A.G.
-
Parker v Taswell
...the Plaintiff to have been deprived of his costs. They referred to and commented upon Pain v. Coombs (1 De G. & J. 34), Wood v. Scairth (2 K. & J. 33), Powell v. Lovegrove (2 Jur. N. 8. 791), Fenner v. Hepburn (2 Y. & C. C. C. 159), Dowell v. Dew (1 Y. & C. C. C. 345), Mundy v. Jolli/e (5 M......
-
Johnson v Smart
...whether the misrepresentation was intended or not: Pulsford v. Richards (17 Beav. 87); Sugd. V. & P. (13th ed. 23); Wood v. Scarth (2 K. & J. 33); Stanton v. Tattersall (1 Sm. & G. 529); Edwards v. M'Leay (2 Swanst. 287). [156] the vice-chancellor [Sir John Stuart]. The description is of a ......
-
Micro Indus Inc. v Condoco Grand Cayman Resort Ltd
...Ct., Cause No. 332 of 2001, October 1st, 2001, unreported, dicta of Kellock, Ag. J. applied. (11) Wood v. Scarth (1855), 2 K. & J.33; 69 E.R. 682, referred to. Land Law-contract of sale-description of property-vendor in breach of contract if 20% discrepancy between floor area approximated i......