Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/375

that the sentence of the magistrates of Edinburgh, and the decree of the Lords of Session, in North Britain, made against the said James Greenshields, be reversed. Ib. Journ. p. 240.

The appellant made this ease: That George Middleton Oldfield, mortgaged the manor of Somerford in Cheshire, and other lands in Lancashire and Westmoreland to the respondent Cook, for about 11,500l. and died, in January, 1708–9, and the equity of redemption descended to his two sisters and heirs; and respondent Cook wanting her money, and the coheirs not being prepared to pay it, was forced to become purchaser of Somerford for 8000l. or thereabouts, and discounted so much out of the mortgage debt; and the other respondent Ward, a barrister at law, who transacted Cook's business, promised her to sell Somerford, and pay her 8000l. in a short time, and accordingly treated with appellant, and offered it to him at 9000l. and affirmed it was worth more, but that he designed appellant a favour on account of some family obligations; and in that confidence appellant agreed to purchase at 9000l. and the agreement was about 8th of June, 1710, at Ward's importunity, reduced to writing in this purport, viz.

And this agreement was signed by appellant and Ward, in presence of Ward's scriviner, who had written it: And that since the agreement, and not before, appellant was apprized of the claim of one Davenport, a pauper, who had filed his bill in Chancery, unknown to appellant, to be decreed to part of Somerford; and that the writings touching the title of Somerford, were laid before Webb, who was not satisfied with the title; and respondents, in Hilary term, 1710, filed their bill in the Exchequer, to compel a specifick performance of the agreement, alledging that they had obtained a release from Daven-[434]-port to Ward, and his heirs; and that appellant in his answer, insisted that a title should have been made out to Webb's approbation before the respondents were proper for relief against him, and that the Court ought not to compel him to purchase, as Ward bad elapsed his time for making out the title: And on the hearing, 4th June, 1711, appellant's council objected, that it did not appear that Ward had any authority from Cook to treat with appellant about the purchase, and that therefore the agreement was void by the Stat. of frauds §. 4. and respondents council not being prepared to answer the objection, or to make out the title, the Court indulged them with time, and resumed the cause 28th June, when, respondents not being yet ready, were ordered to pay costs to appellant, and had a further day; and 6th December, the cause came on again, when a note was produced, pretended to be under Webb's hand (but not proved, nor mentioning in what cause, or between what parties) dated 14th November before, which signified his liking of the title, so as to recommend it only to a willing purchaser, which appellant insisted he could not be termed, and at the same time was first produced by way of exhibit, an agreement between Cook and Ward, dated 7th June, 1710, the day before the agreement between appellant and Ward, which was said to be agreeable to the allegation of the bill, and equivalent to an authority in writing, though in fact it did not agree therewith, and seemed to import money paid by Ward to Cook, and that Cook was to have more from him afterwards, and then Ward to have the benefit of the purchase from Cook's trustees; and so the council urged that Ward was by Cook authorized to treat with appellant, which appellant insisted could not be, because only an equitable, not legal interest, was vested in Ward at the most, and that on condition that he paid money to Cook, which was not yet paid; besides, the estate at law was neither in Ward nor Cook, but in Cook's trustees, as appeared upon the face of the last agreement; which was privately made between the respondents, of which appellant had not the least notice, and therefore could not have equal remedy against Ward,