Straight, O.C.J and Brodhurst, J.:— Upon full consideration of all the circumstances of this case, and by the light of the findings returned to us upon the issues remanded, we are of opinion that the decree of the Judge, which is impeached in appeal, should be sustained. The single question for our determination is whether, after having notice of the intended sale to the respondent-vendee, the appellant's conduct was such as to warrant the inference that he either expressly or impliedly acquiesced in or relinquished his claim to pre-emption. It is found by the Judge that be made no communication whatever to the vendor after he became aware that a sale was being negotiated, nor did he make it known to him that, while he stood upon his pre-emptive right, be declined to pay the Rs. 4,000, because it was not the consideration agreed on between the vendor and the vendee. The offer to him having come to his knowledge, as is now found, by the 30th of March, we think he was bound, instead of remaining silent, to communicate to the vendor that he was prepared to purchase at the price within a [25] reasonable time, and that, not having done so, he must be taken to have countenanced the completion of the bargain with the vendee, and to have waived his right of pre-emption. The cases referred to by the learned pleader for the appellant are not strictly analogous, for in them the pre-emptor satisfied the requirements to which we have adverted above. It seems to us, therefore, that the conclusions arrived at by the Judge were well founded, and that this appeal must be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.