That case does not seem to me to have any bearing on the point in question in the present case. The action there was for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The vendor’s remedies in such a case are quite different from the remedies for non-payment of an ordinary debt. In an action for specific performance, the judgment would be for taking, accounts and fixing the amount to be paid by the defendant, which would be the amount actually due at the time the accounts were taken, and if any instalments were not clue at that time, leave would be given to the vendor to apply for directions as to the enforcement of such future instalments: Nives v. Nives (1880) 15 Ch. D. 649, 49 L.J. Ch. 674. Form of judgment in note at p. 675 (L.J. Rep.)’. In the case of Price v. Parsons, supra, it was not decided that the plaintiff had a right of action for the accelerated purchase-money, but only that, as the action was held to be notice under the agreement, the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of that notice on the taking of accounts.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.