Connor v Potts

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 02 March 1897
• Date: 02 March 1897
• Docket Number: (1896. No. 204.)
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)

CONNOR

and

POTTS.

(1896. No. 204.)

Chancery Division

Vendor and purchaser — Innocent misrepresentation by vendor as to acreage — Purchase-money calculated on acreage represented — Specific performance with abatement in price.

Attorney-General v. LeonardELR 38 Ch. D. 622.

Attorney-General v. LeonardELR 38 Ch. D. 624.

Bonham's CaseELR 10 Ch. D. 595.

Calverley v. Williams 1 Ves. Jun. 210.

Cordingly v. CheesebroughENR 3 Giff. 496.

Corley's CaseUNK 23 L. R. Ir. 241.

Dyas v. StaffordUNKUNK 7 L. R. Ir. 590; 9 L. R. Ir. 620.

Earl of Durham v. LegardENR 34 Beav. 611.

Hill v. Buckley 17 Ves. 394.

In re HenleyELR 9 Ch. D. 469.

In re Northumberland Avenue Hotel Company, LimitedELR 2 Times' L. R. 210; 33 Ch. D. [16, 18.

In re Stevens Unreported.

Lavery v. PursellELR 39 Ch. D. 508.

Manser v. BackUNK 6 Ha. 443.

Mc Kenzie v. HeskethELR 7 Ch. D. 675.

Neap v. AbbottENR C. P. Cooper, 333.

Phelps v. WhiteUNK 5 L. R. Ir. 318; 7 L. R. Ir. l60.

Powell v. ElliottELR L. R. 10 Ch. 424.

Re Bonham, Ex parte the Postmaster-GeneralELR 10 Ch. D. 595.

Re BonhamELR 10 Ch. D. 595.

Re CorleyUNK 23 L. R. Ir. 249.

Stringfellow's Case Dyer, 67 b.

Tamplin v. JamesELR 15 Ch. D. 215.

The Attorney-General v. AndrewENR Hard. 24.

The Earl of Durham v. LegardENR 34 Beav. 611.

The King v. WellsENR 16 East, 282.

The Oriental Bank Corporation, Ex parte the CrownELR 28 Ch. D. 643.

534 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1897. Appeal. For these reasons I agree with the opinion expressed by Judge 1897. Boyd that the provisions of the Bankruptcy Acts, giving priority In re to the particular Crown debts mentioned, do not affect the priority GaLVar. of the Crown for other debts, such as that in question here ; but I Palles, C.B. think it necessarily follows from this opinion that he should have acceded to the application of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. The appeal must be allowed, and an order made for payment to the Commissioners of the sum due. The Commissioners should not, I think, receive their costs, either in this Court or in the Court below : and the assignees should have their costs out of the estate. Solicitor for the Inland Revenue : R. O'Brien Furlong. Solicitors for the assignees : Black 8f Howe. R. D. M. CONNOR v. POTTS. (1896. No. 204.) Vendor and purchaser—Innocent misrepresentation by vendor as to acreage—Purchase-money calculated on acreage re presented—Specific performance with abatement in price. It is a general principle that where a misrepresentation is made by a vendor as to a matter within his knowledge, even though it may be fo unded upon an honest belief in the truth of what he states, and the purchaser has been misÂled by such misrepresentation, the purchaser is entitled to have the contract specifically performed so far as the vendor is able to do so, and to have comÂpensation for the deficiency. The plaintiff agreed to purchase land for £5500 on the representation by the defendant that it contained 442 acres, the price being roughly arrived at by multiplying £12 10s. by that number. The area was in fact less by 67 acres. The representation was made in the belief that it was true : Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance as to the real acreage, with a deduction from the purchase-money in respect of the deficiency, at £12 10s. per acre. The case of Earl of Durham v. Legard (34 Beay. 611) must be treated as an exception to the general rule. ACTION for specific performance of a contract for the sale of lands. The facts of the case are stated in the judgment of the Von. I.] CHANCERY DIVISION. 535 Vice-Chancellor. The...