Whitham v Bullock: CA 1939

The assignee of part of the property comprised in the lease had paid the whole rent in order to stave off a threatened distress. He then sued the assignee of the other part for a contribution.
Held: He succeeded.
Counsel for the defendant submitted that on the severance of the term occasioned by the assignment the landlord ceased to be in a position to sue for the whole rent and could only sue the tenants of the severed parts for a proportion of the rent. The Court (obiter) referred to authority which supported the proposition and then referred to the observation of Tindal CJ in Curtis v Spitty and ‘the unquestionable fact’ that the assignment of part of the land does not affect the landlord’s right to distrain on that part for the rent of the whole.

Citations:

[1939] 2 KB 81

Cited by:

CitedSmith and Another v Jafton Properties Ltd CA 2-Nov-2011
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 . .
CitedLester v Ridd CA 1990
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.448994