The plaintiffs had bought land including iron mines from the defendants. They sought and were given explicit re-assurances about the mine’s capacity, but these proved false after the plaintiffs had begun to work the mine themselves.
Held: (Lords Lyndhurst and Wynford dissenting) The contract could not be rescinded. There was no sufficient evidence of fraud, and because the plaintiffs had tested the re-assurances given and then relied upon that testing.
 UKHL J14, 7 ER 684,  UKHL J60
England and Wales
See Also – Attwood v Small And Others 8-Nov-1827
See Also – Attwood v Small And Others 9-Aug-1827
An agreement, contained by itself less than 1080 words, but there was in it a stipulation that a clause in a previous agreement, which was duly stamped, should be taken as part of the new agreement.
Held: That although with the clause referred . .
See Also – Attwood v Small 12-Dec-1827
Where a great number of exceptions were taken to an answer, and shortly before the argument the defendant submitted to answer them, in consequence of which, it was urged, that the answer was clearly evasive, and that the ordinary costs were greatly . .
See Also – Small And Others v Attwood And Others 3-May-1828
Amendment of pleadings . .
Cited – Small And Others v Attwood And Others 1-Nov-1832
Where a contract is entered into for the purchase of an estate by certain persons in their own names, but in fact on their own account, and also as agents for other parties, a bill to rescind the contract may be filed in the names of the agents and . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 March 2021; Ref: scu.426444