Andrews v Paradise
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 88 E.R. 228
IN THE KING'S BENCH.
Referred to, Anderson v. Oppenheimer, 1880, 5 Q. B. D. 606; Harrison, Ainslie & Company v. Lord Muncaster [1891], 2 Q. B. 692.
228 MICHAELMAS TERM, 11 GBO. 1. IN B. R. 8 MOD. 319. case 240. andrews against paradise. [Referred to, Anderson v. Oppenheimer, 1880, 5 Q. B. D. 606 ; Harrison, Ainslie & Company v. Lord Muncaster [1891], 2 Q. B. 692.] If a man covenant that he will not interrupt the covenantee in the enjoyment of a dose ; the erection of a gate which intercepts it, is a breach of the covenant, although he had a right to erect it. Error of a judgment in the Common Pleas in an action of covenant, in an indenture to lead the uses of a fine, wherein the cognisor covenanted that the cognisee should quietly enjoy, &c. and that he would not do any thing to molest, hinder, or prevent him (the cognisee) or hia wife, or any occupiers of theirs, in the quiet possession or enjoyment of the lands, &c. but that the defendant had molested him, &e. The defendant pleaded, that he had done nothing to molest, hinder, or prevent the cognisee or hia wife, &c. [319] The plaintiff replied, and assigned a breach, for that he was seised of a close in such a field, being parcel of the lands now purchased under his fine and conveyance, and that there was a lane leading to this close, through which lane the plaintiff had a way to the close, and that the defendant, scilicet postea, did erect a gate across that way, per quod the plaintiffs tenant was obstructed in the quiet possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid close, &c. And upon a demurrer to this replication the plaintiff had judgment in the Common Pleas. And now upon this writ of error brought, it was insisted, that the judgment should be reversed. First, for that the replication was only argumentative of an obstruction, viz. per quod the plaintiff's tenant was obstructed ; whereas the pleading ought to have been certain. Secondly, nothing appears in this replication to shew...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v Bennett
...positive enactments of a Statute was exercised judicially and firmly. The ease next appears, re-- (1)414),,,B. 340. ; S. C. 4 Dowl. & (3) 8 Mod. 318. 632:- (4) 4 B. & Saukels. 100. - (5)- 11- Q. 13,.443:. Ve4.3.111. THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. ported on the assignment of error, where it was s......
-
Norman against Foster
...4 Co. 80. 1 Eoll. Abr. 430. Vaugh. 118. 1 Lev. 301. 2 Lev. 37, 194. 3 Lev. 325. 1 Saund. 60. 2 Saund. 177, 181. 2 Mod. 213. 3 Mod. 135. 8 Mod. 318. 10 Mod. 143, 384, 158. Cornyns, 230. 2 Show. 425. 1 Stra. 400. Dougl. 43. 1 Term Rep. 671. 3 Term Rep. 584. An action of debt upon a bond to pe......
-
Solomon v Red Bank Restaurant, Ltd
...1 I. R. 541. (1) [1895] 1 Ch. 287. (2) [1908] 1 I. R. 541. (3) [1904] A. C. 179, at p. 192. (4) [1924] A. C. 851. (5) 28 Ch. D. 103. (1) 8 Mod. 318. (2) [1891] 2 Q. B. (3) [1903] 1 Ch. 797. (1) [1903] 1 Ch. 797. (2) [1908] 1 I. R. 541. (3) [1924] A. C. 851. (4) [1903] 2 Ch. 337. (1) [1908] ......
-
Carpenter v Parker
...a close, the erection of a gate which intercepts it is a breach of the covenant, although he had a right to erect it: .Andrews v. Paradise, 8 Mod. 318." In order to constitute a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment, it is not necessary that there should be an actual eviction : it is e......