HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0691 and id is 1 raw text is: CRANSTOWN (LORD) v. JOHNSTON
house to any one who would let lodgings : he said, he did not wish that ; as he was
an attorney, and wanted it for [169] himself ; that his family consisted of his wife, son,
clerk, and servant; that he had lived nine years in the house of Mrs. Gresse, and only
quitted it, because she wished to live in it herself ; that he paid his rent quarterly,
and they would be satisfied with the character, she would give him ; but they must
call that evening, as he was to give an answer that evening about another house;
and was going out of town the next morning. Notwithstanding this representation
he had been tenant to Mrs. Cresse a very little time : and had been distrained upon
for rent and taxes. He would not quit her house, till she consented to refund £5 he
had paid her, and accept his notes for the rent due ; which were never paid. Upon
going away he did wanton damage to the house, and behaved very ill. Mrs. Gresse
gave him a character to the Defendants in order to get rid of him ; but afterwards
told them the truth. These particulars were proved by her. It was also proved,
that lie let lodgings ; and the Defendants upon receiving this information offered
to give up the rent, if he would quit the house ; that he was a bankrupt in 1789,
and obtained his certificate the same year. A letter written by the Plaintiff, and dated
June 13th, 1796, was read, in which he acknowledged, that it was necessary, he
should be from home, till his affairs were settled. There was also a summons to con-
vene his creditors.
Mr. Lloyd, for the Defendants. The Defendants may use evidence to shew, the
Plaintiff is not a proper person to have a performance, as in a case of misrepresentation ;
and a Plaintiff has often been compelled to adopt what the Defendant has proved to
le part of the agreement : Joynes v. Statham, 3 Atk. 388. The Plaintiff has filed a
bill for performance of an agreement, which from his situation he cannot execute.
There may be cases, in which the Court would not execute it ; as if he had committed
a felony ; and the consequences are the same to these Defendants.
Master of the Rolls [Arden]. Certainly in the case you put I would not execute
the agreement ; nor would I decree a specific performance merely to give up the house
to assignees. (See Brooke v. Hewitt, 3 Ves. 253. Boardman v. Mostyn, 6 Ves.
467. Buckland v. Hall, 8 Ves. 92. Wetherall v. Geering, 12 Ves. 504.) They
could not file a bill of this kind for the house for habitation ; unless they chose to take
it, and be tenants, and enter into covenants. I have no doubt of dismissing the bill
with costs.
[170] The parties came to the following compromise: the Plaintiff to deliver
possession of the house within a month, and to do no damage in the mean time; and
upon performance of these terms the bill to be dismissed without costs : if lie fails in
them, the injunction granted to restrain the Defendants fromproceeding in the ejeetment
to be dissolved ; and the Defendants to be at liberty to apply in this Court for costs.
The Master of the Rolls desired it to be observed, that if it had not been for their
coming to these terms he would have dismissed the bill with costs. (Wall v. Stubbs, 1
Madd. 80. For the cases, in which evidence has been admitted upon agreements
within the Statute of Frauds, and the distinction between supporting and resisting a
specific performance, see the note, 3 Ves. pages, .38, 9.)
Lord CRANSTOWN V. JOHNSTON. Rolls. June 23d, 24th, and 29th; July 5th, 1796.
[See Liverpool Marine Credit Co. v. Hunter, 1868, L. R. 3 Ch. 485; In re Hawthorne,
1883, 23 Ch. D. 748 ; Mercantile Investment, &c., Co. v. River Plate Trust, &c.,
Co. [1892]. 2 Ch. 312; British South Africa Co. v. Companhia de Mocambique
[1893], A. C. 626.]
This Court having jurisdiction in personam upon equity arising out of transactions
concerning lands abroad, particularly if in the British dominions, a purchase of an
estate in the Vest Indies by a creditor under his own execution was upon the circum-
stances held only a security for the debt, the expenees of the proceeding and incum-
brances paid by him, with interest; and subject thereto a reconveyance was decreed.
A single witness cannot prevail against a positive denial by the answer.
The bill was filed upon the following case. After various dealings between the
Plaintiff and Defendant previous to the year 1788, which produced a bill by the De-
fendant, they agreed to an arbitration. Upon the 8th of July 1.789, an award was made,
that Lord Cranstown should upon the 1st of March 1790, pay at Lloyd's Coffee House
952
3 VES. JUN. 169.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0691&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)