Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/538

should pay into court, for the use of Martha Cowper, sister of the respondent, the sum of £1000 residue of the said pur-[213]-chase-money, in discharge of the like sum, payable to her out of the said estate, for her portion; and that upon payment of the said several sums, the respondent should execute to the appellant and his heirs, such conveyance of the said premises, as should be approved of by the Deputy Baron of the said court; and that, instead of interest, the respondent should have and receive all the rents of the said premises, due, or to grow due, on the 25th day of March then next, and no costs to be on either side.

From this decree the appellant appealed; insisting (C. Wearg, C. Talbot), that by the respondent's misrepresenting the yearly value of the estate, the appellant was induced to contract to give a greater price for it than even the general infatuation of the time would otherwise have led him to; and this fraud was apprehended to be a sufficient foundation in equity, to relieve the appellant against the contract, had he exhibited his bill for that purpose. But if this transaction had stood free from all circumstances of fraud, yet forty-one years purchase was vastly more than the real value of the estate to be sold; and therefore it was conceived, that a Court of Equity ought not to have given any assistance to so hard a contract, or have decreed it to be carried into execution; but that the respondent ought to have been left to pursue his remedy at law.

On the other side it was said (P. Yorke, T. Lutwyche), that as to the receipt for £10 indorsed on the back of the lease, the respondent gave no directions for it, nor was the same made with any other intent or design, than as the lawyer's manner of drawing the lease, by making the rent of £146 10s. per ann. payable every year of the term, and indorsing £10 as received thereupon, instead of making £136 10s. payable the first year, and £146 10s. every other year of the term, which was the same, in effect, with the agreement made with the tenant; and this could be no deceit upon the appellant or any other purchaser, because the lease, with this indorsement upon it, was left with the appellant ten days before he entered into the agreement, and no rent had then become due. And as to the yearly value of the estate being misrepresented, or the appellant imposed upon therein, the respondent denied this charge in every particular; for the estate was really worth to be let to a tenant, the same yearly rent which Wilkinson agreed to give for it before the purchase, and was proved so to be by several witnesses, who swore that all the lands, taking one acre with another, were worth 16s. a statute acre; and the appellant's surveyor and witness proved, that the lands contained upwards of ninety Cheshire acres, which amount to above 190 statute acres, and upon a computation, were worth £152 per ann. so that it was not material what the estate had formerly been let for, when ill-managed and before any improvement was made thereon; and as to the price being extravagant, it was but little more than thirty-four years purchase, though the appellant had given for several other estates about Chester upwards of forty years purchase. That the respondent had no intention of selling his estate, till solicited and pressed to it by the appellant, and as the contract made between them was fair and just, without the least colour of fraud and collusion; as the [214] appellant was so well satisfied, that he partly carried it into execution, by paying several sums at different times, in part of the purchase-money, and likewise by taking possession of the estate, without any objection to the contract, or any accusation of fraud, till the respondent refused to take his personal security for the remainder of the purchase-money; as the respondent was always ready to execute proper conveyances, and do every other act incumbent on him, but was without remedy, save in a Court of Equity, the appellant having got the articles in his custody; it was hoped that the decree would be affirmed, and the appeal dismissed, with costs.

But after hearing counsel on this appeal, and it being urged, that "the respondent might well have been contented with the money which had been paid him, without praying the assistance of a Court of Equity to enforce payment of the rest; " the appellant's counsel were asked, "If the appellant would be contented to lose the money so paid on being discharged from his said contract? And the appellant being present in person, and being asked, "What he said to the said proposal?" and expressing his readiness to comply therewith, it was ordered and adjudged, that the decree complained of in the appeal should be reversed: