Samuel Kissock and James Taylor, and The Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Barton J.
• Judgment Date: 17 November 1915
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)
• Date: 17 November 1915

IN THE MATTER OF SAMUEL KISSOCK AND JAMES TAYLOR, AND THE VENDOR AND PURCHASER ACT, 1874.

CHANCERY DIVISION

Vendor and Purchaser — Pending Litigation as to alleged blot on Title — Wilful Default.

Bennett v. StoneELR [1903] 1 Ch. 509, 526.

Bennett v. StoneELR [1903] 1 Ch. 516.

De Visme v. De VismeUNK 1 M. & G. 336.

Hetling and Merton's contractELR [1893] 3 Ch. 269, at p. 281.

In re Earl of Strafford and MaplesELR [1896] 1 Ch. 235.

In re Postmaster-General and Colgan's ContractIR [1906] 1 I. R. 287, at p. 297; affirmed on Appeal, 477.

In re Wilson and Steven's ContractELR [1894] 3 Ch. 546.

In re Woods and Lewis' ContractELR [1898] 2 Ch. 211.

In re Young and Harston's ContractELR 31 Ch. D. 168.

In the Matter of Samuel Kissock and Mary Currie Reported ante, p. 376.

Pelly and Jacob's ContractUNK 80 L. T. R. 45.

Williams v. GlentonELR L. R. 1 Ch. 200.

Young and Harston's ContractELR 31 Ch. D. 174.

VoL. I.] CHANCE ItY 393 IN THE MATTER OF SAMUEL TUSSOCK AND JAMES Barton ,T. TAYLOR, AND THE VENDOR AND PURCHASER ACT, 1874. 1915. Nov. 17. Vendor and Purchaser—Pending Litiyateon as to alleged blot on Title— Wilful Default. The vendor offered for sale certain premises under conditions of sale which provided that, if from any cause whatever the purchase should not be comÂpleted before a named day, the purchaser should pay interest on the balance of the purchase-money from that day. On the day on which the contract was signed, a vendor and purchaser summons was issued in reference to the sale by the same vendor of another lot held under the same title, as to whether a judgment-mortgage which affected both premises took priority to the purchase agreement and was a blot on the title. This litigation delayed completion for nearly seven months. The vendor sought to excuse the delay upon the ground that he had been advised by counsel that the judgment-mortgage did not affect the premises. Held, that the vendor was not justified in contracting to complete within the limited time specified with a cloud overhanging the title ; and that the vendor had been guilty of wilful default, and that consequently the purchaser was not hound to pay interest upon the purchase-money VENDOR AND PURCHASER SUMMONS. By contract in writing, dated October 28th, 1914, Samuel Kissock, who bad purchased from one Miss Hall by purchase agreement dated 12th August, 1911, agreed to sell to James Taylor two leasehold houses in Suffolk Street, Ballymena, for £300. The premises which were being sold originally consisted of four lots On November 7th, 1914, Kissoek's solicitors furnished to the solicitor for the purchaser the abstract of title and conditions of sale. Condition 3 provided that the purchase. of each lot should be completed on November 10th, 1914. Condition 4 was as follows:— " If from any cause whatever the purchase of any lot shall not be completed on or before the 10th day of November next, the purchaser of such lot shall pay interest on the balance of the purchase-money from the said 10th day of November, 1914, to 1916 Vol. I. 2 0 394 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1916. Barton J. the date of the completion of his purchase at the rate of six 1915. pounds per cent. per annum." Condition 14 was as follows:— In re " The vendor shall pay a proportion of all head rent and taxes Eissoc & TAYLOR'S affecting any lot up to the 1st day of November, 1914, and till CONTRACT. the completion of the purchase of such lot shall be entitled to the proportion of the rent accruing out of such lot ; and after...