Martin B said: ‘There are some points in the law relating to estoppels which seem clear. First, when a lessor without any legal estate or title demises to another, the parties themselves are estopped from disputing the validity of the lease on that ground; in other words a tenant cannot deny his landlord’s title, nor can the lessor dispute the validity of the lease. Secondly, where a lessor by deed grants a lease without title and subsequently acquires one, the estoppel is said to be fed, and the lease and reversion then take effect in interest and not by estoppel . . .’
Judges:
Martin B
Citations:
[1859] EngR 767, (1859) 4 H and N 742, (1859) 157 ER 1034, (1859) 4 Hurl and N 742
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and Others SC 22-Oct-2014
The appellant challenged a sale and rent back transaction. He said that the proposed purchaser had misrepresented the transaction to them. The Court was asked s whether the home owners had interests whose priority was protected by virtue of section . .
Appeal from – Cuthbertson v Irving 7-Jul-1860
Held: Decision affirmed. Neither the lessee nor the lessor can dispute one another’s title and if the lessor without a legal estate later acquires one, the estoppel is ‘fed’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Estoppel, Land
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.288119
