 | New Jersey. Court of Chancery - Law reports, digests, etc - 1903 - 930 pages
...Tindal, CJ, lays down a rule which is easy to be understood, though often difficult of application: 'In this state of discrepancy between the decided...at all events, a safe rule to adopt that where the Vao Blarcom .• Hopkins. misdescription, although not proceeding from fraud, is, in a material and... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Common Pleas, Peregrine Bingham - Law reports, digests, etc - 1835 - 818 pages
...vitiate the contract of sale; Jones v. Edney (c), Waring v. Hoggart (d), and Stewart v. Alliston. (e) In this state of discrepancy between the decided cases,...material and substantial point, so far affecting the subject-matter of the contract that it may reasonably be supposed, that, but for such misdescription,... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Common Pleas - Law reports, digests, etc - 1839 - 956 pages
...sale—Jones v* Edney, 3 Camp. 285, Waring v. Hoggart, Ryan & Moody, 40, Stewart v. Alliston, 1 Merivale, 27. In this state of discrepancy between the decided cases,...fraud, is in a material and substantial point, so fat affecting the subject-mattef of the contract that it may reasonably be supposed, that, but for... | |
 | Samuel Vallis Bone - Conveyancing - 1839 - 398 pages
...of sale. (Jones v. Edney, Waring v. Hoggart, 1 Ry. & Mood. 39. ; and Stewart v. AUiston, 1 Mer. 26.) In this state of discrepancy between the decided cases,...at all events, a safe rule to adopt, that where the description, although not proceeding from fraud, is in a material and substantial point, so far affecting... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Common Pleas, John Scott - Law reports, digests, etc - 1839 - 1084 pages
...v. Ednt>y, S Camp. 285, Waring v. Hoggart, Ryan & Moody, 40, Stewart v. ALliston, 1 Merivale, ill. In this state of Discrepancy between the decided cases,...at all events a safe rule to adopt, that, where the miidescription, although not proceeding from fraud, is in a material and substantial point, so far... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Common Pleas, James Manning, Thomas Colpitts Granger - Election law - 1846 - 1126 pages
...vitiate the contract of sale ; Jones v. Edncy (c), Waring v. Ho»gari (d), Steuart v. AUislon. (c) In this state of discrepancy between the decided cases,...material and substantial point, so far affecting the subject-matter of the contract that it may reasonably be supposed, that, but for such misdescription,... | |
 | Charles Davidson - Conveyancing - 1844 - 740 pages
...(Jones v. Edney, 3 Camp. 284 ; Waring v. Hoggart, I Ry. & Moo. 39 ; Stewart v. Alliston, 1 Mer. 26). In this state of discrepancy between the decided cases,...material and substantial point, so far affecting the subject-matter of the contract, that it may reasonably be supposed, that, but for such misdescription,... | |
 | Henry Roscoe - Evidence (Law) - 1844 - 910 pages
...(Jones v. Edncy, 3 Camp. 285. Waring v. Uaggart, li. $• M. 40. Stewart v. Atlislon, 1 Merifalo^ 27.) In this state of discrepancy between the decided cases,...think it is at all events a safe rule to adopt, that when the misdescription, although not proceeding from fraud, is in a material and substantial point... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Common Pleas, John Scott - Law reports, digests, etc - 1845 - 1114 pages
...— Jones v. Edney, 3 Camp. 285 ; Waring v. Hoggart, B.. & M. 39 ; Stewart v. Alliston, 1 Meriv. 27. In this state of discrepancy between the decided cases,...material and substantial point, so far affecting the subjectmatter of the contract that it may reasonably be supposed, that, but for such misdescription,... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Exchequer, Edward Younge, John Collyer - Equity - 1846 - 638 pages
...have stated others, and on that ground alone the contract was rescinded. Tindal, CJ, said: — " It is a safe rule to adopt that, where the misdescription, although not proceeding from fraud, does in a material and substantial point so far affect the subject-matter of the contract, that it... | |
| |
In this state of discrepancy between the decided cases, we think it is, at all events, a safe rule to adopt, that where the misdescription, although not proceeding from fraud, is in a material and substantial point, so far affecting the subject-matter... 
