Allum v Dickinson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1882 |
| Year | 1882 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Landlord and Tenant - Covenant to pay Rates - Paving Rate - “Rates charged upon the Premises or on the Occupier in respect thereof” - Metropolis Management Acts - 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, s. 105 - 25 & 26 Vict. c. 102, s. 96 - Practice - Appeal - Special Case - Appeal by Party not appearing at hearing.
The lessee of a house in a new street within the metropolitan district for seven, fourteen, or twenty-one years, covenanted with his lessor to pay all rates and assessments taxed, rated, charged, assessed, or imposed upon the demised premises, or upon or payable by, the occupier or tenant in respect thereof:—
Held, that the proportion of the expense of paving the new street assessed upon the demised house under 25 & 26 Vict. c. 102, s. 96 was not a rate payable by the tenant under this covenant.
Whether a party to a special case who does not appear at the hearing before the Divisional Court can appeal from the judgment, quære.
APPEAL from the judgment of a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division on a special case.
George Hearn, who was the lessee of a long term of years under a building lease of certain houses in Highbury New Park, Islington, by an indenture dated the 11th of December, 1872, demised one of them to the defendant, Kenrick Dickinson, at a rack rent, for a term of seven, fourteen, or twenty-one years at the lessee's option. The following covenant was contained in the indenture: “That the lessee will at all times during the said term pay the said yearly rent at the times and in manner aforesaid, and also will pay the sewers and main drainage rates, tithe rent charges, board of health, metropolitan, and other district rates and assessments which, whether parliamentary, parochial, or otherwise, now are or at any time during the said term shall be, taxed, rated, charged, assessed, or imposed upon the said demised premises or any part thereof, or upon or payable by the occupier or tenant in respect thereof (except the property or income tax).”
Highbury New Park, the street in which the house was situate, was a new street, and in 1880 and 1881 the vestry of St. Mary, Islington, under the powers of the Metropolis Management Acts, paved it, and resolved that the expenses of so doing should be apportioned between the several owners of the houses and land adjoining the new street.
The proportion of the expenses apportioned to the defendant's house was 78l. 8s. 8d., which sum the plaintiffs, who were the executors of G. Hearn, paid, as they were required to do, to the vestry clerk of the parish.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ang Siok Hong v Tan Geok Kwi
-
McMorrow v Morris and Others
...1983 1 WLR 721 VINT v HUDSPITH 1885 29 CH322 HESSION v JONES 1914 2 KB 421 ST NAZAIRE CO, RE 1878 12 CH 88 ALLUM & ANOR v DICKINSON 1882 9 QBD 632 BELVILLE HOLDINGS v REVENUE COMMISSIONERS 1994 1 ILRM 29 AINSWORTH v WILDING 1896 1 CH 673SWIRE, MELLOR v SWIRE, RE 1885 30 CH 239 BARRY v BUCK......