The Sun.
London, England, 1814-03-04 00:00:00

OPERA HOUSE.-TAYLOR V. WATERS.

Mr. HART moved in this case' that. a sum of
Bank Annuities, standing in the'name of the Ac-
countak-General, to the credit ofthe cause, equal
to the payment of half a year's rent and taxes of
the Opera House, should be sold out, and paid,
over into the hands of-Francis Coast, Esq. the
surviving acting trustee.--Prdered.

LORD KINNARD V. DOWAGR-RLADY SALTOUN.

Sir Si.A ROMILLY, Mr. LEACH, and Mr. ABER-
CROMBY moved that the l!ljunCtion 'in this case,
by which the defendant was restrained from pro-
ceeding at law to recover out of the hands of the
auctioneer, Mr. Harry Phillips, the deposit money
paid by the defendant, on the purchase" of the
plaintiff, Lord Kinnard's house,. in Lower Gros-
venor-street, at the sum of 10,4001. shonld he
dissolved. The sale took place in February, 1613-,
and the defendant 'was to have had possesSioll at
the latest on the 25th day of March folio ving.-2-
The plaintiff, however,- had been. unable to make
a good title, having sold an unexpired term of 47
years, and it turned out, on inquiry, that all he
had to sell was an unexpired term of 7 years, and
a reversionary term of 37 years, w4;le it was pc),
sitively -stipulated that Lord Grosvenor, of whom

.
the lease was held, was not bound to produce his
title. This clearly came under the authority of

the ease of Puljain and White, decided by his Lord-
ship: and, besides, there was a rent-charge of
MR a year ont‘of all Lord Grosvenor's estates,
which might equally well be demanded out of the
house in question, as -out of any other part of
that Noble Lout's property.
• Mr. HART and Mr. DoVins-wzr.t. Contended,
that the present case was distinguishable fret]
that of Fuljam and White inasmuch as there were
there two ierms, hut here the original term and
the reversionary term being derived both from the
same lessor; Richard, late Earl' of Gros:venor,
they were in reality tantamount to one term.
The LOAIP-CHANCELLOR asked, were all the
term's in thiliro leases the same?

Mr. HART—said, he understood they were ; at
all events that the terms in the reversionary lease
were not- more burdensome than those in the
original lease. As- to the rent-charge ,of 10001. a
year over the whole of the Earl of Gtosv'enor's
estates, that hail been released. The Earl of
Grosvenor, too, was now willing that the De-
fendant should see his title, in the hands of the
Master.

The Lorin CHANCELLOR thought he could not
send the parties into the Master's Office in the
.present circumstances. When a person purchased
a.honse in London, he surely thought that he %vas
acquiring some-place into which he might put his
bead at a given period.. Was the. Coart to say
to. a pyrchascr of a house in London;that he was
bound to take it, if he Could not get into it for
20 'years hence. Such circumstances as the pre-
sent, bis Lordship thought, formed an objection
to a.spacifie performance of the agreement. The
defendant, in this case, contracted, on the 17th
Febrnary,-with a condition that she should be
admitted to possession on the 25th of March fol-
lowing. His Lordship had himself looked at the
house in question, and he kninv., from the .
pressiori it made on his mind, that it must be
_a,
very different thing to' a purchaser, whaher he
Acquired right to an old unexpired term, under.
which there had been long undisturbed posses-
lion, or under an unexpired term cif shoit dura-
tion, and a reversionary term' Which might be
.good" for nothing, there being hardly one tick in
a hundred where the proprietor had a power to
make. leases in reversion. His Lordship, how-
ever, should look into the bill and amended bill,
and should then dispose of the present motion.