The plaintiff sought a decree to compel a life tenant and her husband to put and keep the premises in repair, or the appointment of a receiver with directions to repair the premises. The plaintiff could not sue at law because a party who shared the remainder with the plaintiff refused to join in the action as a plaintiff. The defendants argued that no precedent could be produced where the court had made such a decree, which was a reason why none should be made now. That it would tend to harass tenants for life, and jointresses, and suits of this kind would be attended with great expense in depositions about the repairs.
Held: The Master of the Rolls declared, that as there was no precedent, he would not make one.
27 ER 263, (1761) Amb 395, [1761] EngR 36, (1761) Amb 395, (1761) 27 ER 263
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Gaynon and Ann His Wife, Late Ann Foley v Wood 19-Jul-1759
. .
Cited by:
Followed – Powys v Blagrave 2-Aug-1854
The appellants were tenants in tail in remainder and were not able to proceed at law against their co-defendant since he was only an equitable tenant for life. They argued that he ought by analogy to have the obligation not to commit permissive . .
Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.196872
