The Sun.
London, England, 1827-11-13 00:00:00

performance
This was a suit to compel specific
of a contract under the following circumstances :
On the 13th June, 1820, the defendant had pur-
chased by auction an estate of which the plaintiffs,
as trustees, were the venders, for 2,500/. An ab-
stract of certain deeds material to the title was de-
livered on the 3(1 of July, 1820, and on the 7th of
that month, those deeds, then in the custody. of the
venclei's solicitor, were examined by the clerk of the
purchaser's solicitor, and found to be correctly ab-
stracted. In about three years afterwards, before the
purchase was completed, a fire broke out on the pre-
mises where the deeds were deposited, and destroyed
nearly the whole of them. Under these circum-
stances, the purchaser refused to fulfil the contract,
and the venders filed the present bill to compel him
to a specific performance. The cause was heard OIL
the first of May, 1826, before the late Lord Gif-
ford, who was of opinion that the purchaser was
bound to complete the contract, notwithstanding the
destruction of the title-deeds, provided the abstracts
delivered before these deeds were destroyed showed
a good title in the venders; and for the purpose of
ascertaining that fact, a reference was directed to
the Master, who by his report certified that accord-
ing to the abstracts delivered a good title had been
adduced. Exceptions were taken to the Master's
report, on the ground that it did not appear by the
abstract delivered, whoji.were the attesting witnesses
to the deeds which LA been deer destroyed. Upon
argument of those exceptions before the present
Master of the Rollo, his Honour was of opinion, that
as the deeds in question were material to the title, the
names of the attesting witnesses ought to be fur-
nished to, the purchaser, otherwise the latter would
not be compellable to complete the purchase. The
matter was sent to the Master to review his Yeport,
but upon its being admitted that the vendors could
not show who were the attesting witnesses, the cause
now came on for re-argument upon the exceptions,
and for further directions.

Mr. HORNE and Mr. CHING, on the part of the
plaintiffs, the venders, argued that the purchaser was
bound to complete the contract.
Mr. SuGnt:s was on the other side; but the
Master of. the Rolls, without calling upon him for
any observations, pronounced judgment instanter.
His HONOUR observed, that the original question,
whether the venders could compel a specific per-
forinanee,'of the contract, notwithstanding the de-
struction of the title-deeds, was not now open to
him to kletermhte, that question having been already
decide'd in the affirmative by"the late Lord Gifford.
Bnt "the question now before the Court was, whether
a vender could compel a purchaser to complete such
a contract as the one in question, without furnishilig
him with the means of asserting his title and main-
taining his possession after he had paid his purchase
money. It was irnvssible that he could prove in
any Court of Justice, the deeds which had been
destroyed by fire, without knowing Who' were the
attesting witnesses to them ; and as it appeared that
the abstract did not furnish the names of those wit-
nesses, and as no other evidence was forthcoming,
his Honour was clearly of opinion that the purchaser
could not be compelled to complete the contract,
even admitting the decision of Lord Gifford upon
the general question to be correct. The exceptions
.must, therefore, be allowed; and as the venders had
filed their bill after the title-deeds had been destroyed,
they must pay the costs of the suit, and the deposit
money must be returned to the purchaser.