Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/376

allowing it had been a good authority; nor had appellant any opportunity to examine to the time when the said agreement was executed, which he insisted he ought to have had, and the rather, because it was never produced before; [435] notwithstanding which objections a specifick performance of the first agreement was decreed against the appellant, without costs on either side; whereby appellant complained he was aggrieved, because he was ready and willing to have paid the purchase money, had the title been made out to Webb's satisfaction in due time, which was not for near twelve months after respondents bill filed: And further, because if 8000l. to Cook was a valuable consideration for the estate, 9000l. to be paid by the appellant was an imposition upon him: And again, because the release from Davenport was not effectual, being made to Ward, who had no freehold, in deed, or in law, nor any reversion at the time of the release, and therefore the release could neither transmit, nor extinguish, Davenport's right, but bis estate still remained in him: And further because respondents had not by their bill set forth any sufficient authority in Ward from Mrs. Cooke, to make or sign the agreement within the statute of frauds; nor indeed had Cook any legal interest in the estate, so as to authorize respondent Ward to treat, nor had he any sufficient authority from Mrs. Cooke for the making the agreement, whereby appellant could compel her to perform it: And finally, because if any opinion, as to the title, had been given by Webb, (which was not proved in the cause,) the same did not import his liking the title, but only that a willing purchaser might run the venture of it, which appellant did not think it reasonable to do in so great a value. (William Turner. Henry Arden.)

Respondents shewed that on, Oldfield's death, Ward, in order to help Mrs. Cook to part of her debt, which then amounted to 11,400l. besides interest, did, in her name, but upon his own account, about a year after, agree with the co-heirs of Oldfield, for the purchase of Cheshire estate: And that, 7th and 8th December, 1709, the co-heirs and trustees of Oldfield, by respondents direction, conveyed the Cheshire estate, in satisfaction of the interest then arrear, and of 8400l. of the principal money, to George Hosier and William Constantine, Esqrs. and their heirs: And that there was a memorandum in writing signed by both respondents, dated 7th June, 1710, reciting the purchase, and that it was intended in trust for Ward; he paying as well the arrears of interest, as the principal sum of 8400l. with the growing interest, [436] from 8th December, 1709; and accordingly Cooke acknowledging the arrears of interest to be then paid by Ward, agreed that that upon payment of 8400l. and interest, she and the trustees would execute conveyances, and Ward agreed to pay the same at or before Christmas after: And that appellant having, as he confessed by his answer, treated with Oldfield in his lifetime, and bid above 9000l. for this Cheshire estate; and respondent Ward apprehending it might be acceptable about May, 1710, offered it to appellant at 9000l. which he readily accepted, and the writings of the title were sent to Webb, to peruse for appellant, and a memorandum of the agreement was set down in writing by Mr. Jacob a scrivener, and friend of appellant, dated 8th June, 1710, viz. appellant to pay 2000l. at midsummer, with all interest then due, and the remaining 7000l. with interest, at Christmas after, that appellant should have the rent due at Lady-day then past, and the advantage of all lives fallen, allowing taxes, steward's salary, and other deductions usual," and that Mrs. Cook should make a good title to the liking of Mr. Webb, and upon payment should at appellant's charge, make reason able conveyances; and each party had a duplicate signed interchangably of this agreement: And that for avoiding all cavil upon account of one John Davenport a pauper, who pretended some claim to a small part of the estate, and had brought a bill in Chancery against Cook, and the co-heirs of Oldfield, though in truth he had no right, respondent Ward agreed with him for his demand, and he dismissed his bill, and by indenture of that date released all his right, and that this deed was left with the other writings at Mr. Webb's chambers, in two or three days after the date: And that this claim of Davenport's was appellant's only objection to the title; and respondents insisted the decree of the Exchequer ought, under these circumstances, to be affirmed. (J. Jekyll.  Sam. Dodd.)

Die Martis, 13 Maii, 1712. After hearing council on this appeal it was adjudged that the same should be dismissed, and the decretal order complained of affirmed. Lords Journ. vol. xix. p. 446.