A lease described the southern boundary of the premises as ‘a straight line of about 355 fathoms from John Vincent’s house . . to a bound-stone’, which was then described, the demised premises being ‘particularly delineated by the map’, that map being on the back of the lease. The problem was this that the lease did not say from what part of the house that line was to be drawn. Further, on the map John Vincent’s house had been placed incorrectly.
Held: Extrinsic evidence was admissible to determine the true boundary. The judge was required to ask the jury to include consideration of the map. There remained a latent ambiguity which would have to be resolved by evidence other than construction of the deed.
Lord Cranworth LC: ‘The map is referred to not for the purpose of shewing the site either of the house or the bound-stone. The facts as to the true position of the house and the bound-stone are ascertained by other means. The use of the map is to clear up what, without it, was uncertain, namely, from what part of the house the line was to be drawn; and for that purpose its exact site is immaterial.’ It was for the jury, strictly, to say where the boundary line was drawn on the map, but because it was so plainly drawn from the north-east corner of John Vincent’s house the jury would have had so to find.
Lord Westbury, Lord Cranworth LC
(1866) LR 1 HL 222
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Beale v Harvey CA 28-Nov-2003
Land had been divided into three lots on its development, but the site plan did not match the line of a fence actually erected.
Held: The court was not bound by the Watcham case, and would not follow it to allow reference to the later . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.235514