༡༥
24.
" compressions to the effect that
"lo treat does not
constitute
"cartract in the strict
the strict sense.
"terow, yil says that after
a.
a
nolice
of the
anvice
"notice to liest neither party
of
get
rid of the obligation, the one to lake, "ître octior to give up the lands I "apecified in the notie. According to
expressed by Vice Chancellor
"The views
"Kindersley, the defendant. "vering the law of the Count
W
"cannot, as
contra=
Me
The Vice Chancellor saips
" get rid of the obligation to give up
"to the Company the lands included)
it
in the notice, get what is he doing! "He is advertising for sale by public "auction the property comprised in
"The notice to treat, and cheroly
638
"attempting to get rid of the notice "to treat which has been saved upon
"him by the Plaintiffs. My opinion, ctcerefore, is that the plaintiff.
"entitled to maintain the
are
sjunction J
" which they have oblamed, and "cannot difolved it."
17.
But it
mai
be said that the
cases to which reference has been I made were decided under Acts of Parliament, sand under special Acts,
but the majority under the Lands Clanses Carsolidation Act. This is: true, but I am at
A.
haw this circumstanes
weight of the
Pas es
as
to see
lose to
caw
lefon the
authorities I