The Express.
London, England, 1863-06-01 00:00:00

RE THE BATTERSEA PARK COYMIBBIO-1119/1.

- ---------
Thie was a question of conversion. The Battersea-park
Commiseioners were empowered to take certain lands for
the purposes of their &eta, and amongst others lands of
which a Mr. Arnold was seamed in fee subject to a lease to
a Mr. Cleaver. In September, 1848, the commissioners gave
Mr. Arnold the usual notice that they intended to take his
land, and in October, 184,1, Mr. Arnold wrote to them
claiming a sum of 1,2501. as compensation money for him
interest. Nothing more was done during Arnold's lite (be
died intestate in 1848), but in 1849 the commissioner,
entered on the land after having purchased the
tenant's interest. In 1853, after their compulsory powers
had expired, they entered into negotiations with Mrs. Arnold (the widow and executrix of Mr. Arnoldr for the
purchase of these lands, which she agreed to sell for 1,2001.;
but it appearing that she had no power to make a title, the
commissioners were advised to adopt, and did adopt, Mr.
Arnold's offer of 1,250/., and eventually, after much beg°.
tiation and delay, arising from the state in which Mr. Ar-
nold's affairs had been left by his death, that sum was in
March last paid into court. Arnold's widow being
dead, his administrator de boats non now presented this
petition claiming the maid rum of 1,250/. as having been
converted into personal estate by the notice and counter
notice In Arnold'. lifetime. The heiratelaw of Arnold,
on the contrary, urged that there never had been a binding
contract capable of being enforced in a suit for specific per-
formance, and therefore claimed the Mlle sum on this
ground, that the land had descended on him by the death of
his ancestor intestate.

Mr. Selwyn, Q. 0., and Mr. A. E. Miller appeared for the
tgitgimer ; Mr. Munn for the commissioners ; and Mr.
y, Q.C., and Mr. Lewin for the heir-at-law.
The Mader of the ROIL was of opinion that this money
belonged to the heir-at-law. Where there had been a bind-
ing contract in the testator's lifetime there waa of course
an immediate conversion, but where the price had not been
agreed to there wee no binding contract. That would be
so as between ordinary vendors and purchasers, and he
could not see that the fact that one of the parties
was a public' body with compulsory powers made
any difference. In his opinion Mr. Arnold's
heir-at-law was not bound by the contract,
and might have requited the price to be tanked by a
irdler from quiat4casreurbersi.d the
distinctionf..rtit. quoted by
d., Mr.
and
eo much premed in the argument, between a contract and that
which was tantamount to a contract ,• if both parties were
bound there was a contract, if not, there was bon. Here
he was of opinion that no binding contract existed till the price
bad been fixed, and that not having been done in Mr.
Arnold'. lifetime he must declare that his heir was en-
titled to this money as the purchase moneys of land which
bad descended on him. It was said that that would leave
the younger children deititute ; if so, he much repotted
it, but he was there to administer the law according to
the right' of the parties, even in hard cane. The com-
missioners had very properly agreed to pay the costa.