Wilde v Watson

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 17 July 1878
• Date: 17 July 1878
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)

CHANCERY DIVISION.

WILDE

and

WATSON.

Hamer v. SharpELR L. R. 19 Eq. 108.

Routledge v. GrantENR 4 Bing. 653.

Dickinson v. DoddsELR 2 Ch. D. 463.

Bromley v. Holland 7 Ves. 2, 21-22.

Hayward v. Dimsdale 17 Ves. 111.

Jackman v. Michell 13 Ves. 581.

Davis v. The Duke of MarlboroughENR 2 Swans. 157.

Hone v. O'Flahertie 9 Ir. Ch. R. 119.

Ireland v. LivingstonELR L. R. 5 H. L. 395.

Salte v. FieldENR 5 T. R. 214.

Riddick v. Glennon 6 Ir. Jur. 39.

Carlisle v. WhaleyELR L. R. 2 H. L. 391.

Simpson v. Lord Howden 3 M. & Cr. 97.

Estate-agent Implied authority Unauthorised contract Registration of invalid agreement Relief against cloud on title.

4 02 . LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. I. the deed of conveyance in the tin box, making him label them, " these belong to Henrietta ;" but notwithstanding all this, he determined not to part with control over the note while he lived: and Mr. Creagh has distinctly stated, in the course of his evidence, in a very pointed manner, "I do not mean to say that the note belonged to her in her father's lifetime ;" and again, "From anyÂÂthing he said to me I could not draw the inference that he was abandoning his right to sue on the note during his life." In truth, Mr. Cross endeavoured to make a testamentary gift of the note in a manner which the law does not permit. The gift must therefore fail, and I must declare that the note constitutes part of Mr. Cross's assets. Solicitors for the Plaintiff : Messrs. Meade Colles. Solicitor for the Defendant : Mr. Simon Creagh. WILDE v. WATSON. Estate-agent-Implied authority-Unauthorised contract-Registration of in valid agreement-Relief against cloud on title. 1. When an owner of property employs an estate-agent to procure a purÂÂchaser or tenant at a specified price, the agent has no implied authority to conÂÂclude a contract for sale ; his duty is simply to find a purchaser or tenant, and to communicate his offer to the owner. 2. The Court will relieve against the registration of an invalid agreement for sale of land, even though the registration be on the face of-it defective ; the ground of the jurisdiction being that such registration forms a cloud on the title. An estate-agent-employed by the Plaintiff to obtain a purchaser for a house at a certain price-purported to conclude, on behalf of the PlainÂÂtiff, a contract for sale with the Defendants at the price mentioned, without notice that the Plaintiff himself had previously concluded a conÂÂtract for sale with another purchaser. The Defendants, after notice of the prior contract, registered their contract, but the registration was admittedly defective. Upon bill filed for clearing the Plaintiff's title :ÂÂHeld, that the estate-agent had no implied authority to conclude a contract for sale; and the Court-having come to the conclusion, upon the facts, that no V o J. CHANCERY DIVISION. 403 express authority had been given-held, the Plaintiff entitled to a decree de V. C. claring the agreement null and void, and also declaring that the registration 1878. of it should be deemed null and void, and as if no such registration had been WILD]: effected. V. BILL praying a declaration that an agreement entered into by WATSON. the Defendants with Messrs. Battersby & Co. was void as against the Plaintiff, and made without authority from him, and not in any way binding on him ; and that the Defendants should be ordered to deliver up the same to be cancelled : and also a declaraÂÂtion that the registration of the memorial was null and void. The registration was defective in this, that there was no witness to the execution of the agreement by Messrs. Battersby & Co., and the necessary affidavit was made by a witness to the execution by the Defendants only. The facts are so fully and minutely stated in the judgment that it is unnecessary to set them out here. lir. Walsh, Q. C., Mr. Richey, Q. C., and Mr. Harty, for the Plaintiff : When an owner of property employs an estate-agent to procure a purchaser for it at a certain price, the estate-agent has no authoÂÂrity to enter into a contract for sale : Hamer v. Sharp (1), and thereÂÂfore assuming that the Plaintiff did say to young Mr. Battersby, " Close if you can for 2900,"-that would not make him a general agent to complete all the terms of the contract. Even if *the Plaintiff had authorized the agent to offer the house, the conÂÂtract was not completed till the offer was accepted : Routledge v. Grant (2) ; and before the Defendants accepted the offer the PlainÂÂtiff had sold the house to another. The sale of the property to a third person is of itself a withdrawal of a previous offer : DickinÂÂson v. Dodds (3). Even if the proposer purports to give a definite time for acceptance, he is free to withdraw his proposal before that time has elapsed : Pollock on Contracts, p. 8. Here the fact of the sale to Mr. Quain revoked the authority of the agents : Story on Agency, p. 644, 7th ed. By putting this document on the registry, the Defendants have made it impossible for the Plaintiff to carry out his contract (1) L. R. 19 Eq. 103. (3) 2 Ch. D. 463. (2) 4 Bing. 633. 404 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. V. C. with Mr. Quain, and the property has been rendered unsaleable. 1878. The registration is admittedly defective : but in Bromley v. WILDS Holland (1), deeds which were admittedly void were ordered to be v. W 1TSON. delivered up. To the same effect are Hayward v. Dimsdale (2), and Jackman v. Michell (3), and Davis v. The Duke of...