it was argued that a surrender of a lease would annihilate all interests derived under the lease.
Held: The argument failed. It was ‘clear law, that though a surrender operates between the parties as an extinguishment of the interest which is surrendered, it does not so operate as to third persons, who at the time of the surrender had rights, which such extinguishment would destroy, and that as to them, the surrender operates only as a grant, subject to their rights, and the interest surrendered still has, for the preservation of their right, continuance.’
Judges:
Lord Ellenborough C.J
Citations:
(1816) 5 M and S 146, [1816] EngR 53, (1816) 105 ER 1005
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Barrett and others v Morgan HL 27-Jan-2000
The landlord served a notice to quit on the head tenant under an understanding that the head tenant would not serve a counter notice. The effect was to determine the head and sub-tenancy. It acted as a notice to quit, and despite the consensual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.190572
