Wythes v Lee
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 December 1855 |
| Date | 19 December 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 61 E.R. 954
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. on appeal, 25 L. J. Ch. 389; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 130; 4 W. R. 316. See Aberaman Ironworks v. Wickens, 1868, L. R. 5 Eq. 512; L. R. 4 Ch. 109; Whitbread, & Company, Limited, v. Watt [1901], 1 Ch. 914; [1902], 1 Ch. 835.
Pleading. Demurrer. Lien. Vendors and Purchasers.
[396] wythes . lee. Dec. 18, 19, 1855. [S. 0. on appeal, 25 L. J. Ch. 389; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 130; 4 W. R. 316. See Alemman Ironworks v. Wickens, 1868, L. R. 5 Eq. 512; L. R. 4 Ch. 109; Whitbread, & Company, Limited, v. Watt [1901], 1 Ch. 914; [1902], 1 Ch. 835.] Pleading. Demurrer. Lien. Vendors and Purchasers. Bill by a purchaser claiming a lien for the deposit, repudiating the contract, and praying delivery up of the contract, held not demurrable^ Examination of the question whether a purchaser has such a lien. This case came on upon demurrer. It is not necessary to state in detail the allegations of the bill, as the material question was one of broad principle. The substance of the case made by the bill was as. follows:-The Plaintiff had contracted with the Defendant for the purchase of the Defendant's estate for a very large sum, 380,000, and he had paid 38,000 by way of deposit. The Defendant was a mortgagee, selling,under a power of sale; and he held the mortgage, as to the greater part, in trust for several persons; as to a part he was mortgagee for himself. After much negoeiation it was found that the vendor could not make a satisfactory title as against his mortgagees and cesiuis que trust. The Defendant had, after nearly three years of such negoeiation, given notice to the purchaser that if he did not complete within three months he should treat the contract as rescinded. The three months had passed. By the bill the purchaser accepted the repudiation of the contract, and treated it as at an end for the purpose of specific performance. The bill alleged distinctly that the vendor could not make a title under his mere power of sale, and that he could not complete the sale without a clear breach of trust. It repudiated altogether the performance of the contract, and prayed that it might be declared that the purchaser had a lien on the estate for his deposit and for certain 3DREWKY, 397. "WYTHES W. IJEE 955 monies, which it alleged had been paid by the purchaser at the request of the vendor [397] for interest on the mortgages, for insurances and for other expenses useful to the estate; and it prayed that the estate might be sold to satisfy these demands, and for a delivery up of the contract in the hands of the vendor. To this a general demurrer for want of equity was put in. Mr. Selwyn, for the demurrer. The purchaser says he has a lien on the estate for his deposit and expenses; but as soon as the contract was created it was his estate. How can he have a lien on his own estate? But when, as here, the contract is at an end, & fortiori he has no lien ; for it is not alleged there is any collateral contract, and there is no stipulation for such lien in the contract. There is no instance of a bill merely for the deposit being supported : Williams v. Edwards (2 Sim. 78). The right to recover the deposit is a mere legal right: Sainsbwry v. Jones (5 Myl. & Cr. 1); Bennett College v. Carey (3 Bro. C. C. 390). Swing v. Osbaldistone (2 Myl. & Cr.; see p. 88) shews the mere payment of the deposit gives no lien: Gee v. Pearse (2 De G. & Sm. 325). But even where the Court sees an equity, it will not dispose of the questions of damages and expenses, but will leave them to be dealt with at law : Nelson v. Bridges (2 Beav. 239). [The bill also proceeded on the complication of the accounts between the vendor and purchaser. On this [398] point the learned counsel cited Padwick v. Hurst (18 Beav. 575).] The mere complication of accounts between principal and agent will not support a bill. But here all the payments are on one side; that is a pure question for law. [He cited also North-Eastern Railway Company v. Martin (2 Phil. 758V] Then, as to the delivery up of the contract. What has the purchaser to do with it 1 It is no cloud on his title. Then there is this objection to the bill-this is not the case of a vendor owner of the inheritance, nor of a simple mortgagee, but of a mortgagee in trust for other persons. He is only a trustee for sale for subsequent incumbraneers; and the bill alleges that he cannot sell without a breach of trust. Now, where the execution of a contract would make one party commit a breach of trust, the Court will not interfere; it will never decree a breach of trust; and yet the Plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Barrett Apartments Ltd
...what had originally been a legally enforceable contract as was the case in Whitbread and Company v.Watt; Rose v. Watson; Wythes v. Lee (1855) 3 Drew 396; and Combe v. Swaythling (infra). To take the analogy used by Vaughan Williams L.J., it is true that, generally speaking, in an action bro......
-
Reidy v The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland
...to attract equitable intervention, an obvious example being the trustee's lien.” (emphasis added) 104 . The decision in Wythes v. Lee (1855) 3 Drew 396 suggests that liens are founded upon general considerations of justice in equity. In the course of the judgment on appeal, the Vice Chancel......
-
Bestland Development Pte Ltd ((in Liquidation)) v Manit Udomkunnatum and Another
...Whitbread & Co, Limited v Watt [1901] 1 Ch 911 (folld) Whitbread & Co, Limited v Watt [1902] 1 Ch 835, CA (folld) Wythes v Lee (1855) 3 Drew 396; 61 ER 954 (refd) Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 1985 Rev Ed) s 104 (1) Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 1994 Rev Ed) ss 115 (1), 127 Harish Kumar (Chor Pee &......
-
Martin Commercial Fueling Inc. v. Virtanen et al., [1993] B.C.T.C. Uned. C21
...through without any default on the part of the purchaser has been recognized for many years. In Wythes v. Lee (1855), 106 R.R. 385, 61 E.R. 954, this principle was discussed but not applied. A more recent discussion is to be found in J.A.R. Leaseholds Ltd. v. Tormet Ltd., [1965] 1 O.R. 347,......