LAW INTELLIGENCE
COURT OF CHANCERY— Tuesday, NOV. 5.
MUNDY v. JOLLIFFE.
In this case his Lordship furnished the parties with a minute of his judgment in the course of the vacation, and now stated his reason for the conclusion at which he had arrived. The bill was filed by the plaintiff to compel the defendant to grant him a lease of a certain farm near Petersfield. The defendant denied that he was bound to grant any such lease; first, because there was no binding agreement to grant any lease; and, secondly, that, if there was, the plaintiff, by neglecting to drain the land and to do other acts to which he had pledged himself, was not in a condition to require an equitable performance of any such agreement. The Vice-Chancellor, on hearing the case, dismissed the bill with costs, expressing an opinion that the evidence did not disclose such an agreement as the plaintiff alleged. His Lordship now said that after a careful examination of the whole of the evidence he was clearly of opinion that it did make out an agreement for a lease to be granted by Colonel Jolliffe to the plaintiff. His Lordship therefore decreed in favour of a specific performance, and directed a reference to the Master to approve of the terms of the lease to be granted by the defendant, who is to pay the costs of the suit.