The landlord had sued the defendant for the whole of the rent. He pleaded that all the interest of the lessee in the lease and the demised land had been assigned to the defendant. The defendant denied that plea. Issue was joined on that question. At trial it was proved that the defendant was the assignee of only part of the land. According to the strict rules of pleading the defendant had succeeded on the pleaded issue and a verdict was entered for him. The Court of King’s Bench was asked whether that verdict should be set aside.
Held: It should not be. The landlord had decided to go to trial on the pleaded issue and had not amended his pleading.
In the course of his judgment Tindal CJ said that whether privity of estate in respect of the whole of the leased land exists by virtue of an assignment of part was ‘a nice and difficult question, not settled by any decision in the books, so far as we can ascertain’.
Citations:
[1834] EngR 768, (1834) 1 Bing NC 15, (1834) 131 ER 1023
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Doe Dem Curtis v Spitty 25-Jan-1832
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Smith and Another v Jafton Properties Ltd CA 2-Nov-2011
The landlord challenged the right of the tenants to acquire the freehold. Lessees had been subdivided the apartments and then, without the landlord’s consent, assigned them. The new arrangement had increased the number of qualifying tenancies so as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.317444