38S SALE OF SHOOTING. 



suant to his contract, the purchaser (in the absence of fraud or mis- 

 representation on the part of the vendor) is not entitled to damages for 

 the loss of his hargain. Thus in Pounsett v. Fuller, the defendant 

 agreed to sell to the plaintiff shooting on a certain manor, and it was 

 afterwards discovered that the defendant had a mere equitable title, in 

 tact, a mere agreement from the owner of the manor to let the shooting 

 to him for four years, he supplying his house with game. The plaintiff 

 brought an action for the breach of the contract ; but it was held that 

 he was entitled only to recover nominal damages, and the expenses 

 incurred in tlie investigation of the defendant's title, but not damages 

 for the loss of his bargain, or expenses incurred in obtaining shooting 

 elsewhere, or in fruitless endeavours to substitute a new contract on the 

 failure of the original bargain. The Court of Common Pleas thought 

 the case fell within Flureau v- Thornliill, which decided that where a 

 man undertakes to sell an estate, the bargain is to be understood as 

 being subject to this qualification or condition, viz., that he has a good 

 title to convey ; and in the judgment it is said to result from that, that 

 the vendee, where the bargain goes off by reason of the vendor's inability 

 to perform the condition, gets no damages beyond the mere expenses of 

 investigating a title which turns out to be bad. 



In TotnUnson v. Day, the defendant took a mansion-house and farm 

 from the plaintiff under an agreement, by which the plaintiff agreed, 

 among other things, tlial the defendant should have the exclusive right of 

 sporting over the manor in tvMch the farm lag, and should occupy the 

 glebe land of the parish. The rent was to be £450, and the defendant 

 occu})ied the farm for some time ; but the agreement, although acknow- 

 ledged and recognised, was never signed by the defendant. The chief 

 inducement of the latter to take the farm was the promised privilege of 

 an exclusive right to sport ; but it turned out that the plaintiff' (not 

 being the owner of all the lands in the manor, and not having free 

 warren) had no power to grant any such privilege ; and the defendant 

 was, in fact, warned off by the several occupiers within the manor. 

 The plaintiff also failed in procuring the glebe for the defendant's 

 occupation, and for this he offered to make a proportionate abatement 

 of the rent. The defendant was sued in Use and Occupation for £450, 

 one year's rent, as reserved by the agreement, and paid £350 into 

 Court, and had a verdict, the jury considering that to be the annual 

 value of the land, independently of the glebe and the privilege of sport- 

 ing. The Court of Common Pleas held that it was clearly the ]3rovince 

 of the jury to ascertain, independently of any agreement, what the 

 defendant ought to pay, and that an eviction of part of the subject 

 matter of the demise (namely, of the exclusive privilege of sporting) 



