Thomas Earl of Arundel brought a writ of waste alleging that his ancestor had leased a manor to the defendant for a term of years and specified waste in a hall, a kitchen, a stable and certain oak trees.
Norton (for the defendant) says that the plaintiff’s ancestor had sold the hall to the prior of Mendham before the lease and by virtue of that sale the prior had dismantled the building after the ancestor’s death and asked for judgment. As to the stable he says that the timber of the same was so rotten in the lifetime of his ancestor that it fell down in his lifetime and asked for judgment; and as to the oaks he says that he had cut them down to erect a new stable and had built it with the same oak trees and asked for judgment. As to the rest he pleads that he had committed no waste, and was ready etc.
Skrene. The first plea with regard to the hall amounts to saying no waste committed; but we are ready to prove that it was.
Norton. In as much as we have alleged that your ancestor sold the hall and by force of that sale it was dismantled in your time and you may have your action in respect of that dismantling and intend to have your action against us and you do not respond to this matter we ask for judgment because we have admitted the fact of the waste in this manner and the dismantling and have justified it by reason of the sale by your ancestor and the prior’s action, and so etc.
Skrene. Again we ask for judgment for another reason in as much as he has admitted the waste committed by a third party in the dismantling of the hall and the tenant could have stopped him doing this and if the third party did it without his consent he could bring an action against him and so the defendant has not answered us and we ask for judgment etc.
HANKFORD, J.. Although the ancestor sold the hail if the purchaser did not dismantle and remove it in his lifetime after the ancestor’s death the hall which was annexed to the free tenement descended to the heir and so no-one was allowed to dismantle it. Cutting a wood or the like are not similar to the dismantling of a building because one can bring a precipe quod reddat for a building and that proves that a building is free tenement and inheritance.
HILL, J. By the ancestor’s sale it was at once unannexed from the free tenement and vested in the purchaser as chattel. So, even if he did not dismantle it in the lifetime of the ancestor, he was able to do so after his death, particularly as his entry into the manor was no wrong to anyone except to the lessee. If the manor had been entailed there would be some colour to the heir’s claim because then the deed of the ancestor who was tenant in tail would not prejudice him; but when the ancestor had fee simple in the manor (the contrary to this not being pleaded here) it seems his plea is good.
COLEPEPER, J. In this case the plaintiff ought to be in no better position than his ancestor and his ancestor would be barred from action by his own deed, and so etc.
Skrene. Then we say that he himself dismantled the same hall and ask for judgment etc.
THIRNING, C.J. Even if he himself dismantled the hall he could have done this in the name of the prior who acquired it and so you have as yet pleaded nothing to charge him with waste, and so etc.
Skrene. We will make things easier for you and say that he dismantled the hall and sold it for his own profit, as we are ready etc.
Norton. In as much as you do not deny the sale made by your ancestor to the prior and by force of that the ownership belonged to him the dismantling was a wrong to the prior and not to you and we ask for judgment.
And then Norton because of what had said said as before and added ‘and that he did not did this for his own profit etc.’
And the others to the contrary.
Skrene. As to the stable his plea is double. One plea is that the wood was rotten in his ancestor’s lifetime, which is a matter of 1aw to bar us from action, because the cause of the waste arose in the ancestor’s time. The other is that it collapsed in fact in the same ancestor’s lifetime.
Citations:
[1409] [Co. Litt. 53a (g)]
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196949