References: , [1841] EngR 552, (1841) 8 M & W 209, (1841) 151 ER 1013
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Parke B
The defence to an action of trespass was that the defendant was seised of the land in question. He produced a deed, made between himself, the plaintiff and a third party, in which this was stated to be the case
Held: The plaintiff was not estopped from denying the defendant’s seisin because the action was not brought on the deed which did not directly concern the land. The doctrine of estoppel as it applies to recitals extends also to instruments not by deed.
Parke B said: ‘If a distinct statement of a particular fact is made in the recital of a bond, or other instrument under seal, and a contract is made with reference to that recital, it is unquestionably true, that, as between the parties to that instrument, and in an action upon it, it is not competent for the party bound to deny the recital, notwithstanding what Lord Coke says on the matter of recital in Coke Littleton, 352; and a recital in instruments not under seal may be such as to be conclusive to the same extent . . By his contract in the instrument itself, a party is assuredly bound, and must fulfil it. But there is no authority to show that a party to the instrument would be estopped, in an action by the other party, not founded on the deed, and wholly collateral to it, to dispute the facts so admitted, though the recitals would certainly be evidence.’
This case cites:
- Appeal from – Carpenter -v- Buller (, Commonlii, [1840] EngR 840, (1840) 2 M & Rob 298, (1840) 174 ER 295 (A))
. .
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Prime Sight Ltd -v- Lavarello PC ([2013] WLR (D) 514, Bailii, [2013] UKPC 22, WLRD, [2014] 2 WLR 84, [2013] 4 All ER 659, [2014] 1 AC 436)
(Gibraltar) Parties to a contract for the sale of land including the appellant company declared a purchase price which both knew to be false. Faced with insolvency proceedings, the appellant sought to challenge a claim for the full amount.