References: [1859] EngR 767, (1859) 4 H & N 742, (1859) 157 ER 1034, (1859) 4 Hurl & N 742
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Martin B
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 . . .’
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Scott -v- Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and Others SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 52, Bailii Summary, [2014] HLR 48, [2015] 1 AC 385, [2014] 3 WLR 1163, [2014] WLR(D) 447, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0102, SC, SC Summary)
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 ([1860] EngR 980, Commonlii, (1860) 6 H & N 135, (1860) 158 ER 56)
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’ . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 26-Oct-15 Ref: 288119
