Manifold v Johnston

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: M. R.
• Judgment Date: 18 March 1901
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)
• Date: 18 March 1901

MANIFOLD

and

JOHNSTON.

Chancery Division

Vendor and purchaser — Particulars — Conditions of sale mdash; Indemnity against rent — Misleading condition — Sale under the Court — Constructive notice — Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 78).

Bank of Ireland v. Brookfield Linen Company 15 L.R. Ir. 37.

Cooper v. PhibbsELR L. R. 2 H. L. 149.

Cooper v. PhibbsELR L.R. 2 H. L. 149.

Hall v. Smith 14 Ves. 426.

Hatton v. Waddy 2 Jon. 541.

In re BanisterELR 12 Ch. D. 131.

Kendall v. Hill 6 Jur. (N. S.) 968.

Osborne to RowlettELR 13 Ch. D. 774.

Patman v. HarlandELR 17 Ch. D. 353.

Pope v. GarlandENR 4 Y. & Coll. 394.

Re Doherty's Contract 15 L.R. Ir. 247.

Smith v. ChaduickELR 20 Ch. D. 27.

VoL. I.] CHANCERY DIVISION. 7 The next tenant for life and certain persons entitled to rent- V.- a charges under the said indenture and a prior settlement had _19°1. signed consents to the payment. 122, 2.e NAVAN R. D. C. Macrory, in support of the application. Ex parte FITZHERBEET THE VICE-CHANCELLOR made an order for payment out to the applicant without requiring any undertaking ; costs to be paid by the District Council. Solicitors for the applicant : S. S. 4 E. Reeves 8f Sons. Solicitor for the District Council: Fottrell. D. Mt. M. MANIFOLD v. JOHNSTON. M. R. 1901. Vendor and purchaser—Particulars—Conditions of sale—Indemnity against March 18. rent—Misleading condition—Sale under the Court—Constructive notice Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874 (37 4. 38 Viet. c. 78). Certain premises, described as lot 2, were sold by public auction, under the direction of the Court. The particulars stated that lot 2 was held, with other premises, under lease of 1877, for a term of years, subject to rent, and further stated that the said lot 2 was sold " subject to the said rent, but is indemnified therefrom by an indenture, dated 16th August, 1881, whereby the said lot was assigned to A. J." The 12th condition of sale was as follows :—" Lot 2 was assigned by deed, dated 16th August, 1881, indemnified against the rent reserved by the said lease (of 1877), as in said deed mentioned, and the purchaser shall not require any further or other indemnity in respect of the same, and shall not require any information as to the person or persons, or premises liable to the said rent, or bound by the said indemnity." The indenture of assignment of 1881 assigned lot 2 to A. J. " Indemnified from the rent, but subject to the covenants by the lessee and the conditions in the said lease." M. was declared the purchaser of lot 2. At the time of bidding he believed that the other premises demised by the lease of 1877 were bound to indemnify lot 2 against the rent reserved by the lease. The purchaser applied to be discharged from his contract on the ground that the provision as to indemnity contained in the deed of 1881 did not give THE IRISH REPORTS. [1902. him any such real or adequate indemnity against the rent as he was entitled to under his contract: Held, that there was not an indemnity within the contract, and that the condition of sale was one which, taken in connexion with the particulars, rendered the information given by the document insufficient and misleading, and that therefore the purchaser should be discharged from his contract. SUMMONS under the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874. Pursuant to an order of the Master of the Rolls, certain premises described as lot 2 were sold by public auction. The partiÂculars stated that lot 2 consisted of premises situate at Palmerston-road, on which plot the houses...