Source: https://chestofbooks.com/business/law/Law-Of-Contracts-2/Section-VI-Of-Compensation.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 08:07:58+00:00

Document:
(w) Martin v McCormick, 4 Sandf. 366.
(x) Bank of Chillicothe v. Dodge, 8 Barb. 233; Merchants Bank v. Spalding, 12 Barb. 302; Leslie v. Baillie, 2 Younge &C, Ch. 91; Ring V. Doolittle, 1 Head, 77(Y) United States v. Bartlett, Daveis, 9.
(a) Champlin v. Lay tin, 18 Wend. 407; Hall v. Reed, 2 Barb. Ch. 500.
(b) Ken von p. Weltv, 20 Cal. 637.
But this rule, if it be a rule, is very liberally construed.
(f) At least, such has been the practice in Pennsylvania, Gibson, C. J., Decamp v. Feay, 5 S. & R. 328; Coulter, J., Haube rger v. Root, 5 Barr. 112; Kribbs v. Downing, 25 Pa, 399.
(h) And if the parties have themselves stipulated that the compensation for errors in the description of the property shall be estimated by arbitration, upon their failure to get it settled in that manner, the court will settle it by reference to the Master. Leslie v Thompson, 9 Hare, 268, 5 Eng. L. & Eq 171.
(i) Peers r. Lambert, 7 Beav 546 A want of title to 209 acres, out of 698, was held to be too great a deficiency to be supplied by compensation, although the parcel of 209 acres was separated by a public road from the residue, and all the buildings were on the latter. Jackson v. Ligon. 3 Leigh, 161.
(j) Shackleton v. Sutcliffe, 1 De G 4 S. 609.
(k) See White v. Cud don. 8 Clark & F 792 Lord Brooke v Rounthwalte, s Hare, 298.
If a purchaser find that he cannot have the estate he bargained for without a considerable deduction from it, he may insist on this, and on being allowed adequate compensation, (q) * But a seller could not insist that a purchaser should take an estate, with an equally large diminution, although he offered an adequate deduction from the price, (r) The reason is latter case, the Vice-Chancellor noticed a distinction between a risk going to the very estate in the land, and therefore putting in jeopardy the specific subject of the contract, in which case he held it to be clear, that the acceptance of an indemnity would not be required; and the case where a good title can be made, but it is subject to a pecuniary charge; and he stated that in cases of the latter kind, a court of equity had compelled a specific performance of the contract upon security against the charge. Though even that course, he said, might have been questionable, as imposing, at all events, a considerable degree of trouble upon a purchaser, to which he had not subjected himself by the terms of his contract. Neither can a vendor, as it seems, be compelled to give an indemnity. In Balmanno v. Lumley, 1 Ves. & B. 225 (which was an application by a vendor), Lord Eldon, Ch., said " he did not apprehend the court could compel the purchaser to take an Indemnity, or the vendor to give it." And in Aylett v. Ashton, 1 Mylne & C. 114, it was held, that an indemnity could not be required. And see Paton v. Brebuer, 1 Bligh, 66, 67. But Lord Eldon himself had decreed an indemnity in Milligan v Cooke, 16 Ves. 13, and whether the explanation of that case, suggested in the note in 1 Bligh, 67, be supported by the facts, quaere. Lord St. Leonards, whose opinion appears to be that an indemnity cannot be required in any case, has questioned the propriety of the decree in Milligan v. Cooke, 1 Sugd. V. & P. ch 7, § 1, p. 35.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 § 1