References: [1802] EngR 271, (1802) 2 East 575, (1802) 102 ER 490
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Lord Ellenborough CJ
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.’
This case cites:
- Cited – Congham -v- King ((1631) Cro Car 221)
An action in covenant would lie against an assignee of part of the land comprised in a lease for not repairing his part. Such a covenant was divisible and followed the land. . .
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Smith and Another -v- Jafton Properties Ltd CA (Bailii, [2011] EWCA Civ 1251, [2011] WLRD 314)
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 . . - Cited – Lester -v- Ridd CA ([1990] 2 QB 430)
A farm with 23 acres was let in 1902. The term passed to Alfred and William Burge, a father and son farming in partnership. On the later dissolution of the partnership, the house and five acres of land were assigned to Alfred and the remaining 18 . .
