Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Landlord and Tenant - From: 1800 To: 1849

This page lists 109 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.


 
 O'Mahoney v Dickson; 1800 - (1800) 2 Sch & Lef 408

 
 Beasley v D'Arcy; HL 1800 - (1800) 2 Sch & Lef 403
 
Moore v Foley [1801] 6 Ves 232
1801


Landlord and Tenant
Prima facie, a lessor will be taken not to have intended to create a perpetually renewable lease, but the court will give effect to such if there is in the lease clear evidence of such an intention.
1 Citers


 
Stevenson v Lambard [1802] EngR 271; (1802) 2 East 575; (1802) 102 ER 490
6 Jul 1802

Lord Ellenborough CJ
Landlord and Tenant
The landlord brought an action in covenant against an assignee of the term claiming rent. The assignee pleaded (amongst other things) that he had been evicted from half the land by title paramount. The question for the court was whether, in those circumstances, the rent was apportionable so as to relieve the assignee from liability for half the rent. Held: It was. Lord Ellenborough CJ said that where the action was brought upon the original contract against the original tenant, the rent was not apportionable. After referring to the authorities, he said: "So covenant will lie against the assignee of part of an estate for not repairing his part; "for it is dividable, and follows the land," with which the defendant as assignee is chargeable by the common law, or by the stat. 32 H. 8, c. 37. Congham v. King, Cro. Car. 222. Upon the whole, therefore, we think that the condition of this assignee is in point of law different from that of a lessee chargeable on the privity of contract; and being chargeable on the privity of estate, and in respect of the land, his rent is upon principle apportionable as the rent of a lessee is, or as his rent would be in an action of debt or replevin."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Doe d Cox v Roe (1803) 4 Esp 185
1803


Landlord and Tenant
The landlord of a public house in Limehouse gave notice to quit "the premises which you hold of me . . . commonly called or known by the name of The Waterman's Arms." However, the only property let by the landlord to the tenant was a public house called The Bricklayer's Arms; indeed there was no public house in Limehouse called The Waterman's Arms. Held: The ambiguity could be resolved in favour of the landlord. lThe notice was held effective in respect of the tenancy of The Bricklayer's Arms, the case being treated as one of latent ambiguity.
1 Citers


 
Kynaston v The East India Company [1803] EngR 464; (1803) 4 Price 85; (1803) 146 ER 401
1 Feb 1803


Landlord and Tenant

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Gibson v Wells (1805) 1 Bos & Pul (NR) 290
1806

Sir James Mansfield CJ
Landlord and Tenant
This was an action on the case in the nature of waste. The first count alleged that the defendant was a tenant for a certain term and had committed voluntary waste. It was alleged that the defendant was a tenant for a certain term and had committed voluntary waste. It was proved he was a tenant at will. Held: Being of the opinion that dilapidations proved amounted only to permissive waste, the court nonsuited the plaintiff. Although an action on the case in the nature of waste might be maintained for commissive waste, the court had never known an instance of such an action being maintained for permissive waste only. On a motion to set aside the nonsuit, the same judge observed that if the action were maintainable, such an action might be brought against a tenant at will who omitted to repair a broken window. He thought the action was an innovation.
1 Citers


 
Doe dem Warner v Browne (1807) 8 East 165; [1807] EngR 124; (1807) 103 ER 305
1807

Lord Ellenborough CJ, Lawrence J
Landlord and Tenant
The parties agreed a lease at a rent of £40 per annum. The landlord was not to raise the rent nor turn out the tenant "so long as the rent is duly paid quarterly, and he does not expose to sale or sell any article that may be injurious to W Warner in his business." The tenant paid his rent and committed no breach of covenant. The landlord gave six months' notice. Held: The notice was good. At common law a tenancy for life is an estate of freehold, and can only be created by deed and not by parol.
It would be "inconsistent with, and repugnant to" a "tenancy from year to year" that "it should not be determinable at the pleasure of either party giving the regular notice".
Lord Ellenborough CJ said: "What estate the defendant was contended to have? And whether he were not in this dilemma; that either his estate might enure for life, at his option; and then according to Lord Coke such an estate would, in legal contemplation, be an estate for life; which could not be created by parol: or if not for life, being for no assignable period, it must operate as a tenancy from year to year; in which case it would be inconsistent with, and repugnant to the nature of such an estate, that it should not be determinable at the pleasure of either party giving the regular notice."
Lawrence J said: "If this interest be not determinable so long as the tenant complies with the terms of the agreement, it would operate as an estate for life; which can only be created by deed.
The notion of a tenancy from year to year, the lessor binding himself not to give notice to quit, which was once thrown out by Lord Mansfield, has been long exploded."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Browne v Warner [1807] EngR 342; (1807) 14 Ves Jun 156; (1807) 33 ER 480 (B)
23 Jul 1807

Lord Eldon LC
Landlord and Tenant, Equity

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Browne v Warner [1808] EngR 21; (1808) 14 Ves Jun 409; (1808) 33 ER 578
25 Jan 1808


Landlord and Tenant

1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
Mayor etc of Congleton v Pattison and Another [1808] EWHC KB J66
1 Jul 1808
KBD
Lord Ellenborough CJ, Le Blanc J
Landlord and Tenant, Land
The plaintiffs granted a lease of land subject to a covenant to give notice of those who worked in the silk mills to be erected and to pay fees for workers employed to cover the town's responsibilities to inhabitants brought into the town. They now sought payment from the defendants, who were successors in title, and who had not given notice or made payments as required. The defendants argued that they were not liable since it was only a collateral covenant and did not run with the land. Held: The claim failed: "This is a covenant in which the assignee is specifically named; and though it were for a thing not in case at the time, yet being specifically named, it would bind him, if it affected the nature, quality, or value of the thing demised, independently of collateral circumstances; or if it affected the mode of enjoying it. But this covenant does not affect the thing demised, in the one way or the other. It may indeed collaterally affect the lessors as to other lands they may have in possession in the same parish, by increasing the poor's rate upon them; but it cannot affect them even collaterally in respect of the demised premises during the term. How then can it affect the nature, quality, or value of the thing demised? Can it make any difference to the mills, whether they are worked by persons of one parish or another: or can it affect the value of the thing at the end of the term, independently of collateral circumstances? "
[ Bailii ]
 
Doe d Spicer v Lea (1809) 11 East 312; (1809) 103 ER 1024
1809


Landlord and Tenant
A lease in the new style commencing on St Michael's day gave notice to quit on the old Michaelmas date, but should have been given to expire on the new Michaelmas day. Extrinsic evidence that the party intended the other day was not admitted. A strict rule of construction has been applied not only to notices exercising break clauses but also to notices to terminate periodic tenancies
1 Citers


 
Rowe d. Bamford v Hayley (1810) 12 East 464
1810


Landlord and Tenant
The benefit of a break clause passes automatically with the term of the lease creating it.
1 Citers


 
Poole v Bentley [1810] EngR 52; (1810) 12 East 168; [1810] 104 ER 66
9 Feb 1810


Landlord and Tenant
An instrument containing words of present demise will operate as a lease, if such appear to be the intention of the parties, though it contain a clause for a future lease or leases; as where the one thereby agrees to let, and the other agrees to take land for 61 years at a certain rent for building, and the tenant agreed to pay out 2001 within 4 years in building 5 or more houses, and when 5 houses were covered in the landlord agreed to grant a lease or leases, (which might be for the more convenient underletting or assignment of the leases), but this agreement was to be considered binding till one fully prepared could be produced.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Taylor v Needham [1810] EWHC CP J104; 127 ER 1084; (1810) 2 Taunt. 278
10 Feb 1810
CCP

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Hill v Barclay [1810] EWHC Ch J30
2 Mar 1810
ChD
Lord Eldon LC
Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Baker v Holtpzapffel (1811) 4 Taunt 45
1811


Landlord and Tenant
A tenant was obliged to continue paying rent even though the house he rented was burned down through no fault of the landlord.
1 Citers


 
Herne v Bembow (1813) 4 Taunt 764
1813


Landlord and Tenant
The premises were demised by the plaintiff to the defendant by lease. It was an action on the case in the nature of waste. Held: "Case for permissive waste does not lie against a tenant by lease, who has not covenanted to repair".
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Montgomery, And Others, Trustees of The Late Duke of Queensberry v Charteris, Earl of Wemyss [1813] EngR 692; (1813) 2 Dow PC 90; (1813) 3 ER 798
10 Dec 1813
PC

Landlord and Tenant
Entail, with prohibition against alienation, properly fortified with irritant and resolutive clauses, followed by a permissive clause to let life-rent tacks without diminution of the rental. No specific prohibition against letting of leases, except as above. A lease granted by heir of entail, for 97 years, taking a grassum, or fine. Held that this lease fell under the prohibition against alienation.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Inman v Stamp (1815) 1 Stark 12
1815

Dampier J
Landlord and Tenant

1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Copeland v Watts (1815) 1 Stark 412
1815
CCP
Gibbs CJ
Landlord and Tenant
Gibbs CJ: "... it would be productive of dangerous consequences to presume a surrender to the lessor, from the fact of his [the lessor] receiving payment from an assignee; a landlord in general was willing to receive payment from the person who offered it, whosoever he was, but by receiving it, he did not discharge the lessee."
1 Citers


 
Bayne v Walker (1815) 3 Dow 233; (1815) 3 ER 1049
1815
HL

Landlord and Tenant
A tenanted farmhouse was burned down by accident. Held: The landlord had no obligation to rebuild.

 
Doe d Spencer v Goodwin (1815) 4 M&S 264
1815


Landlord and Tenant
The landlord sought to exercise a right of re-entry for breach of covenants "thereinafter contained". Infact the covenant broken preceded the right of re-entry in the lease. Held: The clause was ineffective to support a forfeiture.

 
Rogers v Pitcher [1815] EngR 734; (1815) 6 Taunt 202; (1815) 128 ER 1012
8 May 1815


Landlord and Tenant
In replevin proof of payment of rent to the avowant is prima facie evidence that he is the owner of the land. But in a case where the Plaintiff did not originally receive the possession of the land from the avowant, it is competent to the Plaintiff to rebut the title of the avowant by shewing that he paid rent under circumstances which did not entitle the avowant to the rent. And such evidence may be given on the issue non tenuit modo et forma. Semble that tenant in clegit may enter by virtue of the writ of elegit without ejectment.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Doe d Beadon v Pyke; 1816 - (1816) 5 M & S 146

 
 Jones v Hill; CCP 1817 - (1817) 7 Taunt 392
 
Montgomery, And Others v Charteris (Earl of Wemyss): And Duke of Buccleuch v Montgomery, And Others, Etc [1817] EngR 657; (1817) 5 Dow PC 293; (1817) 3 ER 1334
21 Jul 1817
PC

Landlord and Tenant

[ Commonlii ]
 
Luxmore v Robson [1818] 1 B & Ald 584; [1818] 106 ER 215
1818


Landlord and Tenant
The tenant covenanted to repair the property and to keep it in repair during the continuance of the term'. Held: An action lay for any breaches occurring before the term expires.


 
 Townrow v Benson; 1818 - (1818) 3 Madd 203
 
Kynaston v The East India Company [1819] EngR 368; (1819) 3 Swans 248; (1819) 36 ER 850 (C)
4 May 1819


Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Foot v Berkley [1823] EngR 77; (1823) Cart 147; (1823) 124 ER 881
1823


Landlord and Tenant
Ejectione Firmae
The plaintiff declares of a lease of several lands in the parish of Cullam, made by one Chersley for six years ; upon which there was entry and ejectment, The defendant pleads not guilty. Upon which there is a special verdict.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Hayes v Bickerstaff [1823] EngR 285; (1823) Vaugh 118; (1823) 124 ER 997
1823


Landlord and Tenant
Charles Bickerstaff being possessed of a long term of years in certain woodlands and eopces in Cobham, in the county of Kent, demis'd, sett, and to farm lett the same for six years, parce1 of his term to the plaintiff, under a rent and other reservations, and covenanted ; the plaintiff keeping and performing the agreements of his part to be kept and performed.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Bishop v Howard [1823] EngR 619; (1823) 2 B & C 100; (1823) 107 ER 320
17 Jun 1823


Landlord and Tenant
Where A, who held premises under a lease which expired at midsummer, refused to give up the posseslsion at that time, and insisted upon notice to quit, and afterwards continued in possession till Christmas, and paid rent at Michaelmas and Christmas : Held, that this was conclusive evidence of a tenancy, and that the landlord was entitled to recover a quarter’s rent due at LadyDay.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Neale v Wyllie [1824] EngR 929; (1824) 3 B & C 533; (1824) 107 ER 831
29 Nov 1824


Landlord and Tenant
Where the tenant, under a lease containing a covenant to repair, underlet the premises to one who entered into a similar covenant, and the original lessor brought an action on this covenant in the first lease, and recovered : Held, that the damages and costs recovered in that action, and also the costs of defending it, might be recovered as special damages in an action against the undertenant for the breach of his covenant to repair.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Edwards v Etherington (1825) Ry & M 268
1825

Lord Tenterden CJ
Landlord and Tenant
The defendant had been the tenant of a house from year to year. He left without notice, saying that the walls were dilapidated to the point of being unsafe. On a Nisi Prius, these facts were held to be an answer to an action by the landlord for use and occupation. The court directed the jury, that, although slight circumstances would not suffice, such serious reasons might exist as would justify a tenant's quitting at any time; and that it was for them to say whether, in the case before them, such serious reasons existed as would exempt the defendant from the plaintiff's demand, on the ground of his having had no beneficial use and occupation of the premises. The jury found for the defendant, and the Court of King's Bench was afterwards moved for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection; but they refused to disturb the verdict.
Lord Tenterden CJ said: "Slight circumstances will not suffice but such serious reasons may exist, as will justify a tenant in quitting at any time, and it is for you to say whether in this case any such exist.
It is for you to say whether such serious reasons for quitting, existed in this case, as will exempt the defendant from this demand, on the ground of his having had no beneficial use and occupation of these premises; and that, through no default of his own, but through the fault of a person (the Plaintiff) who ought to have taken care, that the premises should have been in such a state, as to continue useful to the defendant."
1 Citers


 
Johnstone v Hudlestone [1825] 4 B & C 922
1825

Bayley J, Holroyd J
Landlord and Tenant
Where a tenant gave an invalid notice to quit, which accordingly did not have effect to determine the tenancy, upon his holding over after the notice was given the landlord was not entitled to double rent under s. 18. (Bayley J) “I think that the Legislature did not intend to punish the tenant for his caprice, but to reimburse the landlord for any injury he might sustain by losing his bargain with a new tenant." As to the recital to section 18: "It is true that the enacting words are carried beyond the recital, but I think that effect must be given to all the words of the clause, and that the enacting words must be construed with reference to the mischief intended to be remedied. The fair construction of that clause [s 18] appears to be, that it shall only apply in case the tenant shall give the notice contemplated in the preamble... so as to make it binding on the landlord to accept possession of the premises.” (Holroyd J) “Here the landlord claims rent under the statute, and treats the tenant as a tortfeasor...”
Distress for Rent Act 1737 (II Geo 2, c 19) 18
1 Citers


 
Holloway And Another v Berkeley [1826] EngR 293; (1826) 6 B & C 2; (1826) 108 ER 353
1826

Bayley J
Landlord and Tenant
The court considered the law applicable to heriots, an incident of manorial tenures such as copyhold. Bayley J said that where a tenement is subdivided "each tenant holds his share in severalty."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Walls v Atcheson [1826] EngR 894; (1826) 2 Car & P 268; (1826) 172 ER 121; (1826) 11 Moore CP
19 Apr 1826
CCP
Best CJ, Park J, Burrough J and Gaselee J
Landlord and Tenant
The tenant took premises for a year, occupied them and paid rent for a quarter and then left. The landlord re-let the premises a few weeks later, at a slightly lower rent, and they remained let for some months, but they were empty for the last two months of the original term of a year. The landlord sought to recover the loss of rent under the original lease, including both the amount by which the rent was less under the later lettings, and the whole rent for the later period when the premises were vacant, but she failed. Held. Putting in another tenant amounted either to accepting a surrender or to evicting the tenant, so as to put an end to the right to claim the rent. Sergeant Vaughan had argued that the lettings were for the tenant's account. Only Gaselee J referred to that argument: "If the plaintiff had given the defendant notice, that, if he would not occupy the apartments himself, she would let them to another tenant, on his account, the case would have been different."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Walls v Atcheson [1826] EngR 908; (1826) 3 Bing 462; (1826) 130 ER 591 (A)
24 Apr 1826


Landlord and Tenant

1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
Turner v Power [1827] EngR 891; (1827) M & M 131; (1827) 173 ER 1106 (A)
22 Dec 1827


Landlord and Tenant, Stamp Duty
In an action for rent on land verbally let, on the same terms as the former tenant’s lease, such lease must be produced properly stamped.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Dearle v Hall [1828] 3 Russ 1; [1828] EngR 574; (1823, 1827, 1828) 3 Russ 1; (1828) 38 ER 475
1828


Landlord and Tenant

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Williams v Protheroe [1829] EngR 260; (1829) 3 Y & J 129; (1829) 148 ER 1122
1829


Landlord and Tenant

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
John Lee Allen v James Berry [1829] EngR 111; (1829) 4 Bligh NS PC 520; (1829) 5 ER 185
1829
PC

Landlord and Tenant
Under a lease commenciiig at Whitsuntide, as to the natural grass lands, and as to the arable lands at the severing of the crops, the tenant being bound to Consume the straw upon the land, and sufficiently to cultivate and manure them, the tenant is entitled to the value of the dung made between Whitsuntide and harvest, and left upon the land; and the landlord having at Whisuntide taken the straw upon the farm, which was no more than was requisite for foddering the cattle between that time and the severance of the crops, is bound to pay the value of it to the tenant.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Williams v Protheroe [1829] EngR 318; (1829) 5 Bing 309; (1829) 130 ER 1080
29 Jan 1829
CCP

Litigation Practice, Landlord and Tenant
An agreement between the seller and purchaser of an estate, that the purchaser, bearing the expence of certain suits commenced by the seller against an occupier for arrears of rent, should have the rent to be so recovered, and any sum that could be recovered for dilapidations, and that the purchaser, bearing the expences, might use the seller's name in actions he might think fit to commence against the occupier for arrears of rent or dilapidations, is not void, as savouring of champerty.
. . from the Court of King's Bench. The declaration stated that, whereas on the 14th day of December, in the year 1823, at Chepstow, in the county of Monmouth, by a certain agreement then and there made between the said Edmund Williams, the Defendant, of the one part, and the said Thomas Protheroe, the Plaintiff, of the other part, the date whereof was the day and year aforesaid, the said Edmund for himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators, in consideration of the sum of 1300 l. to be paid to him or them, on the 2d day of February then next ensuing the date thereof, by the said Thomas, did thereby agree with the said Thomas, his heirs and assigns, to sell and convey to him the said Thomas, his heirs and assigns for ever, on the said 2d day of February then next, a certain freehold messuage or dwelling-house, and certain customary messuages, lauds, &c. in the said agreement particularly mentioned and described, and the said Thomas, for himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators, did thereby agree with the said Edmund, his heirs, executors, and administrators, to purchase the said freehold and customary messuages, lands, and hereditaments thereinbefore mentioned and described, and to pay the said Edmund, his executors and administrators, for the same, the sum, of 1300 l. on the said 2d day of February then next, an having the same conveyed and surrendered to him the said Thomas, his heirs and assign*, by the said Edmund or his heirs,-and it was further agreed that the [310] said Thomas should bear all the expence, costs, and charges of the convey¡ance and surrender to him of the said freehold and customary hereditaments and premises, and of any fines, recoveries, or other assurances necessary to convey and surrender the same respectively, and it was further agreed by and between the said parties thereto, that the said Edmund, his heirs, executors, and administrators, should receive the rents and pay all outgoings, in respect of the said freehold hereditaments, up to the said 2d day of February then next; and, after reciting that proceedings, both at law and in equity, were then pending between the said Edmund and Sir Henry Protheroe, in which proceedings at law the said Edmund was Plaintiff, and sought to recover from the said Sir H. Protheroe six years' rent, at 801. per annum, due the 2d day of February then last, for and in respect of the said customary hereditaments and premises, under and by virtue of a certain agreement made between the said Edmund and the said Sir H. Protheroe, it was by the said agreement, further agreed and declared by and between the said parties thereto, that the said Thomas, his heirs, executors, and administrators, should have and receive the said arrears of rent so claimed to be due from the said Sir H. Protheroe, for his and their own use and benefit, and also the said rent due from the said Sir H. Protheroe, or to become due for the current year, ending on the 2d day of February then next; and, also, that the said Thomas, his heirs, executors, and administrators, should have and be entitled to all sums of money that could be recovered from the said Sir H. Protheroe, for and in respect of dilapidations and wants of repair of and in the said customary hereditaments and premises; and it was thereby further agreed, that the said Thomas, his heirs, executors, and administrators, should be at full liberty to use the name or names o/ the said Edmund, his heirs, executors, and administrators, in the proceedings at law and in equity then pending between the said Edmund and the said Sir H. Protheroe ; and, also, in any other action or actions, suit or suits, which he, the said Thomas, his heirs, executors, and administrators, should think proper to commence and prosecute against the said Sir H. Protheroe for the recovery of the said arrears of rent, or of the current year's rent, or for dilapidations, or wants of repair of and in the said customary hereditaments and premises; and it was thereby further agreed, that the said Thomas should bear, pay, and discharge the costs of the said Edmund in the proceedings then pending, and indemnify him, the said Edmund, his heirs, executors, and administrators, of, from, and against all costs and charges of any future proceedings that might be had by the said Thomas, in the name of the said Edmund, his heirs, executors, and administrators, against the said Sir H. Protheroe ; as by the said agreement, reference being thereunto had, fully appears; and the said agreement being made as aforesaid, afterwards, to wit, on, &c., at, &c., it was, at the special instance and request of the said Edmund, agreed by and between the said Thomas and the said Edmund, that the price or money to be paid by the said Thomas to the said Edmund for the said freehold estate and tenement in the said articles of agreement first mentioned, should be a certain sum of money, to wit, the sum of 800 l, part of the said sum of 1300 l, and that the price or sum to be paid by the said Thomas to the said Edmund, for the said customary tenements and premises in the and agreement also mentioned, should be the residue of the said sum of 1300 l, to wit, the sum of 800 l, subject to the terms in the said agreement specified; and thereupon, afterwards, to wit, on, &c., at, &c., in consideration thereof, and that the and Thomas, at the like special instance and request of the said Edmund, had then and there undertaken and faithfully promised the said Edmund, to perform and fulfil all things in the said agreement contained, on his, the said Thomas's, part to be performed and fulfilled as such purchaser as aforesaid, he, the said Edmund, undertook, and then and there faithfully promised the said Thomas, to perform and fulfil all things in the said agreement contained, on his, the said Edmund's, part and behalf to be performed and fulfilled as such vendor as aforesaid; and although the and Edmund, in part performance of the said agreement, and of his said promise and undertaking, did afterwards, to wit, on, &c., at, &c., sell and convey the said freehold tenements and premises in the said agreement first mentioned to the said Thomas, and his heirs and assigns, at and for the said sum of 500 l., and the said Thomas then and there paid the sum of 500 l. to the said Edmund, upon the terms aforesaid; and although the said Thomas was afterwards, to wit, on, &c., and from thence hitherto leady and willing to accept, receive, and take of and from the said Edmund, a surrender to him, the said Thomas, of the said customary tenements and premises in the said agreement mentioned, at and for the said sum of 800 l., upon the terms aforesaid, and to bear all the expences, costs, and charges of such surrender, and all necessary assurances in that behalf, and to pay the said sum of 800 l., and complete the said purchase on his part and behalf in all respects upon the terms aforesaid, to wit, at, &c.; and although the and Thomas afterwards, to wit, on, &c., and often times afterwards, offered to the said Edmund to complete the said purchase of the said customary tenements and premises, with the appurtenances, upon the terms aforesaid, and requested the said Edmund to sell and surrender to him, the said Thomas, the said customary tenements and premises, upon the terms aforesaid, to wit, at, &c., yet the said Edmund, not regarding the said agreement, nor his said promise and undertaking, but contriving, &c., did not, nor would, on the said 2d day of February in the year last aforesaid, or at any other time, surrender or convey to the said Thomas the said customary tenements and premises in the said agreement in that behalf mentioned, or any part thereof, upon the terms aforesaid, but the said Edmund wrongfully neglected and refused ever to surrender the said customary tenements and premises to the said Thomas, according to the said agreement, and wrongfully discharged the said Thomas from any further performance by him of the said agreement on his part, contrary to the agreement, and the said promise and undertaking of the said Edmund, to wit, at, &c.
Then followed a statement of special damage.
There were several other counts. A general verdict was given for the Plaintiff below, upon which final judgment was entered up, without opposition in the court below.
Curwood for the Plaintiff in error. The first count discloses an illegal agreement, and the verdict and damages being general, the judgment below cannot stand. Holt v. Scholefield (6 T.R. 691).
The agreement presents a clear case of champerty. The statute of 3 Ed. 1, c. 25, against champerty enacts, that "No officer of the king by himself, nor by other, shall maintain pleas, suit, or matters depending in the king's courts, for lands, tenements, or other things for to have part thereof, or other profit, by covenant made; and he that so doth shall be punished at the king's pleasure."
The subsequent statute of 28 Ed. 3, c. 11, is as follows: "And further, because the king hath heretofore ordained by statute that none of his officers shall take any plea or champerty, and by that statute other than officers were not bounden before this time, the king willeth that no officer nor any other, for to have part of the thing in plea, shall take upon him any businesses that are in suit; nor none upon any such covenant shall give up his right to another: and if any so do, and he be attainted thereof, the taker shall forfeit unto the king so much of his lands or goods as doth amount to the value of the part that he hath purchased by such undertaking: and for such attainder whosoever will shall be received to sue for the king before the justices, before whom the plea shall have been; and the judgment shall be given by them. But it is not to be understood hereby that one may not have counsel of pleaders or of learned men (for his fee), or of his relations or neighbours,"
Although the first of these statutes applies in terms to the king's officers only, yet it is extended by the second : both shew the sense of the legislature with regard to the offences of maintenance and champerty, and have never in application been considered as limited to the king's officers.
Then, champerty is an offence punishable at common law, and an agreement which stipulates for the commission of an offence cannot be supported.
In Chesman v, Nainby (2 Ld. Raym. 1459) it was expressly holden, that "if a bond is given with condition to do a thing against an act of parliament, and also to pay a just debt, the whole bond will be void." Norton Simms (Hob. 14). 1 Wms. Saund. 66 a. n. (1). Here the stipulation that the Plaintiff below shall purchase the suit commenced by the Defendant below goes to the whole agreement, and renders it void.
The Court stopped the counsel for the Defendant in error, and holding that there was no champerty in an agreement to enable the bona fide purchaser of an estate to recover for rent due, or injuries done to it previously to the purchase, more especially where such purchaser was not an officer of the king, the judgment of the court below was Affirmed.
1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
Pinero, one, &c v Judson and Another Commonlii, 07 November 1829; [1829]130 ER 1259; (1829) 5 Bing 206; [1829] EngR 709
7 Nov 1829


Landlord and Tenant
Agreement for a lease, with stipulation for the lessee to commence with laying out a cousiderable sum on the premises, (the lease to contain certain specified covenants,) "and in the mean time, and until such lease shall be executed, to pay rent, and to hold the same premises, subject to the covenants above mentioned :"-Held, to amount to an actual demise. Use arid occupation lies for construction as well as actual occupation.
1 Citers



 
 Doe d Aslin v Summersett; KBD 1830 - (1830) 1 B & Ad 135; [1830] EngR 56; (1830) 1 B & Ad 135; (1830) 109 ER 738
 
Rex v Otley (1830) 1 B. & Ad. 161
1830


Landlord and Tenant
A wooden mill was held not to have become annexed to and part of the land.
1 Citers


 
Collins v Barrow (1831) 1 M & Rob 112
1831

Bayley B
Landlord and Tenant
The defendant held property under a three-year lease with a covenant to keep the premises in tenantable repair. He abandoned it without notice after nine months. He now defended an action for the subsequent rent, saying that the house had become uninhabitable having no adequate drainage. Held: The jury was asked whether the sewage could reasonably have been pumped away by the defendant without need of a sewer. Bayley B directed them that: "In any case, the tenant is bound to pay rent during the time for which he has contracted, unless he satisfies the jury that, under the circumstances, he was justified in quitting. I think however that in point of law he will be freed from his obligation to reside on the premises, if he makes out, to the satisfaction of the jury, that the premises were noxious and unwholesome to reside in, and that this state arose from no default or neglect of his own, but from something over which he had no control, or none, except at an extravagant and unreasonable expense. Thus, he could not be bound to make a sewer; and if nothing else could keep the house wholesome, I think he was justified in quitting. The expense of making a sewer may be heavy; but if the Plaintiff would not make it, he cannot, I think, call upon his tenant to continue in a house which requires it." The issue of fact, on which
1 Citers



 
 Duke of Queensberry's Executors v Maxwell; HL 1831 - (1831) 5 Wilson and Shaw 771
 
Edge v Strafford (1831) 1 Cr & J 391
1831
CExc
Bayley B
Landlord and Tenant
The case of Ryley v Hicks was not overruled by Inman v Stamp. Rylet stood as good authority that "a lease, though it were to commence in futuro, would be within the exception in the statute of frauds, if it did not exceed three years from the making."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Efford v Burgess [1831] EngR 334; (1831) 1 M & Rob 23; (1831) 174 ER 8 (B)
13 Jan 1831


Landlord and Tenant

[ Commonlii ]
 
Doe d Abdy v Stevens (1832) 3 B&Ad 299
1832


Landlord and Tenant
The lease reserved a right of re-entry in respect of "any act matter or thing contrary to and in breach of the covenants". The landlord sought to forfeit the lease for a failure to repair. Held: A breach of a repairing covenant was a failure to act, not an act, and was outside the provision for re-entry.

 
Doe Dem Pearson v Ries And Keapp [1832] 131 ER 369; (1832) 8 Bing 178; [1832] EngR 383
23 Jan 1832


Landlord and Tenant
K. agrees to let, and P. to take, a house in its unfinshed state, for the term of sixty years, being the whole term that K. has the same leased to him, at the rent of 5251, payable quarterly, the first payment to be made for the half quarter at Christmas next; P. to insure the premises, and to have the benefit of an insurance lately paid : a lease and counterpart to be prepared at the expense of P., and to contain all the clauses, covenants, and agreements K. entered into in the lease granted to him:” Held, an actual demise, and not a mere agreement for a lease.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Doe Dem Curtis v Spitty [1832] EngR 397; (1832) 3 B & Ad 182; (1832) 110 ER 68 (A)
25 Jan 1832


Landlord and Tenant

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Protheroe v Mathews [1833] EngR 486; (1833) 5 Car & P 581; (1833) 172 ER 1108
26 Mar 1833


Landlord and Tenant

[ Commonlii ]
 
Britten, Administrator Of James Saunders, Deceased v Charles Perrott And Thomas Watts [1834] EngR 64; (1834) 2 Cr & M 597; (1834) 149 ER 898
1834


Landlord and Tenant

[ Commonlii ]
 
Warman v Faithfull (1834) 5 B & Ad 1042; [1834] 110 ER 1078; [1834] EngR 472
25 Jan 1834


Landlord and Tenant
An instrument in writing, whereby A agreed to let premises to B, for seven, fourteen, or twentyone years (commencing at Christmas Day then next), at the option of B, at the yearly rent of 241., payable quarterly, the first payment to be made at the ensuing Lady-Day, free of rates and taxes; and whereby B. stipulated, if he should be desirous of putting an end to the agreement at either of the terms before specified, to give six months’ notice; and that he, B, should pay all the expences of preparing a lease for either of the terms above stated :-is a lease, and not a mere agreement for a lease.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Curtis And Others, Executors of Curtis v Spitty [1834] EngR 768; (1834) 1 Bing NC 15; (1834) 131 ER 1023
27 May 1834
KBD

Landlord and Tenant
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".
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Brown v Shevill [1834] EngR 1020; (1834) 2 Ad and E 138; (1834) 111 ER 54
13 Nov 1834


Landlord and Tenant
A butcher sent a beast to the shop of W., another butcher, to be slaughtered : after it had been slaughtered, and the careass had remained in the shop for some time (but how long did not appear), W.'s landlord distrained it for rent arrear : Held, that the carcass was privileged from distress.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Graves v Weld [1833] 5 B & Ad 105
1835


Landlord and Tenant
A lessee or his PRs may enter land even after the tenancy has come to an end to reap certain crops which were sown by the tenant during the term.

 
Laythoarp v Bryant [1835] EngR 383; (1835) 1 Bing NC 421; (1835) 131 ER 1179
16 Jan 1835


Contract, Landlord and Tenant
Plaintiff put up to sale by auction a lease of premises, which he occupied as assignee of the lease, stipulation not to produce any title prior to the lease. In an action against a purchaser for not completing his purchase, in which action Plaintiff declared he was possessed of the lease, Held, the Defendant having rejected the abstract, that Plaintiff was bound to prove the execution of the lease by calling the attesting witness, and that it was not sufficient to prove the assignment to Plaintiff.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Doe d De Rutzen v Lewis (1836) 5 AD&E 277
1836


Landlord and Tenant
Having acquired a right to forfeit the lease for breach of a repairing covenant, the landlord gave the tenant notice of his intention to enter the property to carry out the repairs. Held: The notice recognised the continuation of the lease, and operated as a waiver of the right to forfeit.

 
Re Hand, ex parte Cocks (1836) 2 Deac 14
1836

Sir G Rose
Landlord and Tenant
(Ct of R) A covenant in a lease to make it void in the case of an assignment by the lessee, did not operate to prevent it being deposited by way of equitable mortgage.

 
Wansborough v Maton (1836) 4 Ad & El 884
1836


Landlord and Tenant
The court found that a wooden barn had not become part of the land.
1 Citers


 
Lord Bolton v Tomlin (1836) 5 Ad & El 856
1836


Landlord and Tenant

1 Citers


 
Neale v Mackenzie [1836] EngR 160; (1836) 1 M & W 747; (1836) 150 ER 635
1836


Landlord and Tenant
A lessee of one hundred acres of land accepted the lease and entered upon the land. Upon his entry he found eight acres in the possession of a person entitled under a prior lease from the lessor, and that person kept possession of the eight acres, until half a year's rent became due, and excluded the lessee from the enjoyment during that period, the lessee continuing in possession of the remainder. It appeared from the dates of and averments in the pleadings, that the prior lease was for a term extending beyond the durationi of the latter lease. Held, on error, (reversing the judgment of the Court of Exchequer), that the latter demise was wholly void as to the eight acres; and that the rent was not apportionable, and the lessor was not entitled to distrain for the whole rent or any part of it.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Hutton v Warren [1836] EWHC Exch J61; (1836) 1 M&W 466; (1836) 150 ER 517
9 Jan 1836
Exc
Parke B
Contract, Landlord and Tenant
The landlord gave his farmer tenant six months notice to quit, but insisted that he continue to cultivate the land. The tenant sought compensation for his seeds and for his labour during the notice period. The written lease said nothing on these issues. Held: The tenant succeeded. Parke B said: "extrinsic evidence of custom and usage is admissible to annex incidents to written contracts, in matters with respect to which they are silent. "and applying that rule: "by the custom of the country, a tenant was bound to farm according to a certain course of husbandry for the whole of his tenancy, and at quitting was entitled to a fair allowance for seed and labour on the arable land; and was obliged to leave the manure, if the landlord would purchase it."
[ Bailii ]
 
Neale v Mackenzie [1837] EngR 533; (1837) 1 Keen 474; (1837) 48 ER 389
22 Feb 1837


Insolvency, Landlord and Tenant

[ Commonlii ]
 
Doe On The Several Demises of Thomas Daniel, Sheriff, And Affleck v Coulthred And Baldrey [1837] EngR 829; (1837) 7 Ad & E 235; (1837) 112 ER 460
10 Jun 1837


Landlord and Tenant

[ Commonlii ]
 
Slack v Sharpe [1838] EngR 666; (1838) 8 Ad & E 366; (1838) 112 ER 876
29 May 1838


Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]
 
Brookes v Humphreys [1838] EngR 910; (1838) 5 Bing NC 55; (1838) 132 ER 1025
10 Nov 1838


Landlord and Tenant
A declaration alleging an eviction, as a breach of a covenant for quiet enjoyment, must not leave it matter of doubt, whether the evictor might not have come in under title from the Plaintiff himself.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Izon v Gorton (1839) 5 Bing NC 501; [1839] EngR 685; (1839) 5 Bing NC 501; (1839) 132 ER 1193
8 May 1839

Tindal CJ
Landlord and Tenant
The tenanted premises had been destroyed by accidental fire. The tenant objected to continuing to pay rent. Held: The rent was payable.
Tindal CJ said: "The cases referred to in the argument, in which the tenant has been allowed to withdraw himself from the tenancy, and to refuse payment of rent, will be found to be cases where there has been either error or fraudulent misdescription of the premises which were the subject of the letting, or where the premises have been found to be uninhabitable by the wrongful act or default of the landlord himself; neither of which circumstances occur in this case."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rerves v Creswick [1839] EngR 1225; (1840) 3 Y & C Ex 715; (1839) 160 ER 889
29 Dec 1839


Landlord and Tenant
Principles on which the Court will direct the apportionment of the expenses of the renewal of leases for lives as between tenant for life and remaindermen.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Cadby v Martinez (1840) 11 Ad & EI 720
1840

Lord Denman CJ
Landlord and Tenant
A clause in his lease allowed the tenant to determine it by notice expiring on Michaelmas day 1837. The tenant mistakenly gave notice to quit and deliver up the premises on 24 June 1837. The notice was expressed to be "agreeably to the covenants of the lease." Held: The notice was not effective to determine the lease. "The covenant to pay rent during the whole term cannot be got rid of by any notice to quit which is not in accordance with the proviso introduced into the lease for the purpose." and "The cases that seemed to point the other way merely shew that, where there is no covenant, a notice describing the premises, so as to be perfectly understood between the parties, will be sufficient: but in none has a proviso or covenant in a deed been held to be satisfied by a notice inconsistent with the terms of it."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Doe d. Kindersley v Hughes; 1840 - (1840) 7 M & W 139
 
Oldershaw v Holt And Another, Executors Of Frewin [1840] EngR 896; (1840) 12 Ad & E 590; (1840) 113 ER 935
3 Nov 1840


Landlord and Tenant

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Doe On The Several Demise Of Hughes And Corbett v Derry; 1841 - [1841] EngR 28; (1841) 9 Car & P 494; (1841) 173 ER 926
 
Mason v Paynter, Esquire [1841] EngR 59; (1841) 1 QB 974; (1841) 113 ER 1406
1841


Landlord and Tenant, Costs
EngR The lessor of the plaintiff in ejectment, having recovered judgment against the casual ejector, obtained a writ of habere facias possessionem, and delivered the warrant to the sheriff's oficer to be executed. The sheriff, having received notice that the landlord intended to apply to set aside the proceedings for irregularity, his officer (did not execute the possession ; and the proceedings were afterwards set aside by a Judge's order, but not for irregularity, the landlord being let in to plead on paymerit of costs, The sheriff had not been ruled to return the writ. The lessor of the plaintiff had incurred expense before the judgment was set aside in endeavouring to get the writ executed; which expense the Master refused to allow on taxation. Held, that the lessor of the plaintiff was entitled to recover this expense in an action against the sheriff for delaying to execute the possession.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Hall v Betty (1842) man & G 410; (1842) 5 Scott NR 508
1842


Landlord and Tenant
In a contract for the sale of leasehold land, and in the absence of an express condition to the contrary, there is an implied covenant on the part of the vendor to make out the lessor's title to make the demise.

 
Arden v Pullen (1842) 10 M & W 321
1842
ExcC
Alderson B, Lord Abinger CB
Landlord and Tenant
The tenancy contained a repairing covenant but the tenant left the house saying that subsidence had caused it to become flooded. Held: He remained liable to pay the rent.
Lord Abinger CB said: "I am of opinion that, unless there has been some fraud or improper concealment on the part of the Plaintiff, which is not suggested, the contract for letting this house was perfectly good. The Defendant was, therefore, bound to perform it so long as the Plaintiff performed her part of it."
Alderson B said: "The rule laid down by Tindal, CJ, in Izon v Gorton, is the correct one, that in order to enable a tenant to avoid his lease, there must be a default on the part of the landlord."
1 Citers


 
Moncreiff v Hay (1842) 5 D 249
1842


Landlord and Tenant, Scotland
The landlord acquired the growing crops sown by the tenant when he enforced an irritancy clause in a lease of agricultural property.
1 Citers


 
Alford v Vickery (1842) Car & M 280; [1842] EngR 398; (1842) Car & M 280; (1842) 174 ER 507
18 Mar 1842


Landlord and Tenant
A notice given not by all the freeholders to a yearly tenant was valid despite the non-involvement of one of the freeholders.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Smith v Marrable, Knt [1842] EngR 1137; (1842) Car & M 479; (1842) 174 ER 598
3 Dec 1842


Housing, Landlord and Tenant
If premises be let for the purposes of occupation, it is on an implied condition that they should be fit for occupation.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Smith v Marrable (1843) 11 M&W 5; (1843) Car & M 479; (1843) LJ Ex 223; (1843) 7 Jur 70; (1843) ER 693
1843

Parke B, Lord Abinger CB
Landlord and Tenant, Housing
Premises were let furnished with the tenant paying a weekly rent of eight guineas. The tenant complained that the premises were unfit, being infested with bugs, and left. The landlord sued for his rent. Held: As an exception to the general rule against implied terms for repair in tenancy contracts, there is an implied covenant of fitness for habitation in a letting of a furnished house. Also a contract of tenancy may be repudiated by a breach of such a condition, and it is not to be held against the tenant that he has endured the breach for longer than he needed to.
Lord Abinger CB said: "in point of law every house must be taken to be let upon the implied condition that there was nothing about it so noxious as to render it uninhabitable." and "I entertain no doubt whatever on the subject, and think the defendant was fully justified in leaving these premises as he did: indeed, I only wonder that he remained so long, and gave the landlord so much opportunity of remedying the evil."
Parke B said that premises were unfit for human habitation: "if the demised premises are incumbered with a nuisance of so serious a nature that no person can reasonably be expected to live in them." and "These authorities appear to me fully to warrant the position, that if the demised premises are incumbered with a nuisance of so serious a nature that no person can reasonably be expected to live in them, the tenant is at liberty to throw them up."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Hart v Windsor (1844) 12 M & W 68; [1843] EWHC Exch J55
1843
Cexc
Parke B
Landlord and Tenant
"There is no contract, still less a condition, implied by law on the demise of real property only, that it is fit for the purpose for which it is let."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Graham v Gordon (1843) 5 D 1207
1843


Scotland, Landlord and Tenant
"Rent is not liquid in the sense that a sum due by bond is. It is matter of contract in consideration of something to be done. It is paid for possession of the subject let. If the tenant says he has not got entire possession, that is a good answer to the claim for rent."
1 Citers



 
 MacMahon v Burchell; 20-Apr-1843 - [1843] EngR 526; (1843) 3 Hare 97; (1843) 67 ER 312
 
Carnarvon v Villebois (1844) 13 M & W 313
1844


Landlord and Tenant, Equity
The extent of an implied surrender of a lease by operation of law is commensurate with what is necessary to give validity to the transaction which the surrenderer is to be estopped from disputing.
1 Citers


 
Surplice v Farnsworth (1844) 7 Man & G 576
1844


Landlord and Tenant

1 Citers


 
Lyon v Reed (1844) 13 M&W 285; [1843-60] All ER Rep 178
1844

Baron Parke
Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel
The court examined the principle of the surrender of a lease by operation of law: “. . . all the old cases will be found to depend on the principle to which we have adverted, namely, an act done by or to the owner of a particular estate, the validity of which he is estopped from disputing, and which could not have been done if the particular estate continued to exist. The law there says, that the act itself amounts to a surrender. In such case it will be observed there can be no question of intention. The surrender is not the result of intention. It takes place independently, and even in spite of intention. Thus, in the cases which we have adverted to of a lessee taking a second lease from the lessor, or a tenant for life accepting a feoffment from the party in remainder, or a lessee accepting a rent-charge from his lessor, it would not at all alter the case to show that there was no intention to surrender the particular estate, or even that there was an express intention to keep it unsurrendered. In all these cases the surrender would be the act of the law, and would prevail in spite of the intention of the parties.”
Baron Parke: "In order to ascertain how far ... cases can be relied on as authorities, we must consider what is meant by a surrender by operation of law. This term is applied to cases where the owner of a particular estate has been a party to some act, the validity of which he is by law afterwards estopped from disputing, and which would not be valid if his particular estate had continued to exist. There the law treats the doing of such act as amounting to a surrender. Thus, if a lessee for years accept a new lease for his lessor, he is estopped from saying that his lessor had not power to make the new lease; and, as the lessor could not do this until the prior lease had been surrendered, the law says that the acceptance of such new lease is of itself a surrender..." and "If we apply these principles to the case now before us, it will be seen that they do not at all warrant the conclusion, that there was a surrender of the lease of the 7th of April, 1812, by act and operation of law. Even adopting, as we do, the argument of the plaintiff, that the delivery up by Ord and Planta of the lease in question affords cogent evidence of their having consented to the making of the new lease, still there is no estoppel in such a case. It is an act which, like any other ordinary act in pais, is capable of being explained, and its effect must therefore depend, not on any legal consequence necessarily attaching on and arising out of the act itself, but on the intention of the parties." and "The acts in pais which bind parties by way of estoppel are but few, and are pointed out by Lord Coke, Co Litt, 352a. They are all acts which anciently really were, and in contemplation of law have always continued to be, acts of notoriety, not less formal and solemn than the execution of a deed, such as livery, entry, acceptance of an estate, and the like. Whether a party had or had not concurred in an act of this sort, was deemed a matter which there could be no difficulty in ascertaining, and then the legal consequences followed. But in what uncertainty and peril will titles be placed, if they are liable to be affected by such accidents as those alluded to by Mr Justice Bayley."
1 Citers


 
Lanyon v Carne et al Executors Of Cara [1845] EngR 141; (1845) 2 Wms Saund 165; (1845) 85 ER 912
1845


Wills and Probate, Landlord and Tenant
A lease is made to A. for 99 years, if A. and B. or either of them shall so long live, to commence after the death of C. yielding and paying 31. for a heriot on the respective deaths of A. and B, and A. dies living C., the heriot is of the same nature with a rent, and is not payable by the executors of A.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Doe d Wyatt v Byron [1845] 1 CB 623
1845


Landlord and Tenant

1 Citers


 
Thomas Smith And Two Others [1845] EngR 250 (B); (1843, 1844, 1845) 5 Man & G 75
1845


Landlord and Tenant

[ Commonlii ]
 
Salmon v Smith [1845] EngR 229; (1845) 1 Wms Saund 206; (1845) 85 ER 209
1845


Landlord and Tenant

[ Commonlii ]
 
Parker v Smith [1845] EngR 366; (1845) 1 Coll 608; (1845) 63 ER 564
17 Jan 1845


Landlord and Tenant, Contract

[ Commonlii ]
 
M'Mohan v Burchell [1845] EngR 724; (1845) 1 Holt Eq 186; (1845) 71 ER 716
30 Apr 1845


Wills and Probate, Landlord and Tenant

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Jones v Carter [1846] 15 M&W 718; [1846] 153 ER 1040
1846

Parke B
Landlord and Tenant
The landlord served a declaration in ejectment from the premises. Held: The service operated as a forfeiture, and a final election to determine the lease, and it was not possible for the landlord later to demand rent. "‘After such an act, by which the lessor treats the lessee as a trespasser, the lessee would know that he was no longer to consider himself as holding under the lease, and bound to perform the covenants contained in it; and it would be unjust to permit the landlord again to change his mind, and hold the tenant responsible for the breach of duty after that time.’ The act there relied on as determining the landlord’s option was bringing an ejection. How does that apply here ? Here, the landlord, by bringing an action for rent accruing subsequently to the accrual of the forfeiture, and obtaining payment of the rent by means of that action, has clearly made his election to treat the lessee as still being his tenant."
1 Citers


 
Rich v Basterfield [1847] 4 CB 783; (1847) 136 ER 715; [1846] EngR 391; (1846) 2 Car & K 257; (1846) 175 ER 106
5 Feb 1846


Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance
A landlord can be liable in nuisance for the acts of his tenant where the very nature of the letting would lead to that nuisance: "If a landlord lets premises, not in themselves a nuisance, but which may or may not be used by the tenant so as to become a nuisance, and it is entirely at the option of the tenants so to use them or not, and the landlord receives the same benefit whether they are used or not, the landlord cannot be made responsible for the acts of the tenants."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
M'Mohon v Burchell [1846] EngR 760; (1846) 5 Hare 322; (1846) 67 ER 936
5 Jun 1846


Wills and Probate, Landlord and Tenant, Equity

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
William M'Mahon And Wife v Burchell And Another [1846] EngR 1180; (1846) 2 Ph 127; (1846) 41 ER 889
4 Dec 1846


Wills and Probate, Landlord and Tenant

1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
Moses Toms v Luckett (1847) 5 CB 23
1847

Maule J
Landlord and Tenant
A lodger may in fact have exclusive possession of his room or rooms in a house, but that does not necessarily turn him into a tenant.
1 Citers


 
Harnett v Maitland (1847) 16 M & W 257
1847

Parke, Alderson, Rolfe and Platt BB
Landlord and Tenant
The court was asked whether a tenant for years was liable for permissive waste. Held: "As to the question, whether the action for permissive waste lies against a tenant for years, all the authorities are collected in the notes to Greene v. Cole, in 2 Saund. 252, where it is stated as clear law, that at common law the action only lay against tenant by the curtesy, tenant in dower, or guardian, but that by the statute of Gloucester, 6 Edw. 1, c. 5, the action is given against lessee for life or years, or tenant pur auter vie, or against the assignee of tenant for life or years for waste done after the assignment. The same authorities are referred to in Vol. 1, p.323 b, where, however, it is said that the point cannot yet be considered as absolutely settled. We are all of opinion, however, that this declaration is defective on general demurrer, for not bringing the case within the class of persons who are liable for permissive waste, for want of an averment that the defendant was tenant for life or years, it being agreed on all hands that a tenant at will is not liable for permissive waste. On this ground there will be judgment for the defendant, without saying anything upon the other point."
1 Citers


 
Doe d Gorst v Timothy (1847) 2 Car & Kir 351
1847


Landlord and Tenant
A notice to quit for a yearly tenancy was expressed to end "at the expiration of the present year's tenancy". Held: The notice was sufficient. Six month's notice was in fact given whether that appeared from the face of the notice or not.

 
Collett v Curling [1847] EngR 627; (1847) 10 QB 785; (1847) 116 ER 298
12 Jun 1847


Landlord and Tenant

[ Commonlii ]
 
Doe, On The Demise of Bastow And Others v Cox [1847] EngR 872; (1847) 11 QB 122; (1847) 116 ER 421
15 Nov 1847

Lord Denman CJ, Coleridge J
Landlord and Tenant
A mortgagor retained possession pursuant to a mortgage which provided that he would hold the property as tenant at will, paying a specified yearly rent. Held. There was an express provision that the tenancy was to be a tenancy at will. Despite the payment of a yearly rent, the mortgagor was a tenant at will and accordingly was not entitled to six months' notice to quit.
Lord Denman CJ said: "The Courts are desirous to presume a tenancy from year to year, where parties do not express a different intention: but here they have expressed it. To hold otherwise would be going beyond any decided case."
Coleridge J said: "Mr Lush says the rule has been to presume in favour of a yearly tenancy. But it is also a rule that documents shall be construed according to the apparent intention; which, in the present instance, clearly is to create a tenancy at will. Rent, at the rate of £ 25.4s. per annum, is to be paid quarterly; but that is, if the will continues undetermined: otherwise the reservation by quarters will not take effect. "
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Faulkner v Lowe (1848) 2 Exch 597; [1848] EngR 602; (1848) 2 Exch 5958; (1848) 154 ER 628; [1848] EngR 544 (A); (1848) 16 Sim 250
1848

Pollock CB
Landlord and Tenant
A covenant by one person with himself and other was senseless.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ] - [ Commonlii ]
 
Doe D Lord v Crago [1848] EngR 487; (1848) 6 CB 90; (1848) 136 ER 1185
12 May 1848
CCP
Wilde CJ
Landlord and Tenant
The lease had been granted for 99 years or until the earlier death of the last of three people. The assignee of the lease stayed in possession long after the death of such survivor, paying the rent as reserved. He said that the lessor had known of the death for some years, that a new yearly tenancy had been created by the payment and acceptance of rent after the termination of the lease, and that the new tenancy had not been determined by notice to quit. He argued that the payment of rent on a yearly basis in the absence of any reference to a different period, created a tenancy from year to year.
Wilde CJ said: "We are of opinion that the learned judge acted correctly in leaving to the jury the question of fact, whether the premises had been occupied by the defendant as under the old lease, in ignorance of its determination, or under some new agreement. And we think that it would not have been proper to have directed the jury that the law implied from the receipt of rent under the circumstances proved some agreement creating a yearly tenancy, which could not determine without notice to quit.
It is clear, that, upon proof of the payment of rent in respect of the occupation of premises ordinarily let from year to year, the law will imply that the party making such payments holds under a tenancy from year to year; and it was so ruled in Bishop v Howard. But it is equally clear that it is competent to either the receiver or payer of such rent to prove the circumstances under which the payments as for rent were so made, and by such circumstances to repel the legal implication which would result from the receipt of rent, unexplained.
The principle, that the payment of rent may be explained, for the purpose of protecting parties from the legal consequences which would otherwise follow from such payments, is recognised by Buller J, in Williams v Bartholomew, and was allowed in Rogers v Pitcher, and it is consistent with the general principles of the law. In this case, if the receipt of rent by the lessor of the plaintiff had been unexplained, a tenancy from year to year ought to have been presumed, according to the decision of Bishop v Howard. But the plaintiff did not leave the receipt of rent unexplained; but gave evidence for the purpose of shewing that such receipt of rent had taken place under a mistake of fact in respect of the determination of the lease, which had improperly been concealed from him. Upon that explanation, the question in the cause was no longer, what was the legal presumption from the unexplained payment of rent; but, whether the evidence offered to explain the receipts on the part of the plaintiff did establish, that, in point of fact, the rent had been received in relation to the old lease, and not upon a new agreement. That was a question of fact, which we think was properly left to the jury. And we think that the jury were properly directed, that, if such rent had been received in relation to any new agreement, the verdict should be for the defendant; such direction being in conformity with the principle, that, from the payment of rent, unexplained, the law will imply a tenancy from year to year, with the incidents attached to it, namely, the necessity of a regular notice to quit, before the defendant's possession could be disturbed."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Cannock v Jones [1849] EngR 164; (1849) 3 Exch 233; (1849) 154 ER 829
20 Jan 1849


Landlord and Tenant

[ Commonlii ]
 
Robinson v Waddington [1849] EngR 717; (1849) 13 QB 753; (1849) 116 ER 1451
9 Jun 1849


Landlord and Tenant

[ Commonlii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.