Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Barnard v Cave

Nominate Series English Reports Cited authorities 2 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date11 December 1858
Date11 December 1858
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 53 E.R. 895

ROLLS COURT

Barnard
and
Cave

[253] barnard v. cave. Dec. 10, 11, 1858. The Plaintiff agreed to take a lease of a public-house from the Defendant (a brewer), but the written contract said nothing as to the restrictive covenants of a brewer's lease. The Plaintiff instituted a suit to obtain an unrestricted lease. The restricted parol agreement being established by extrinsic evidence, Held, that the bill must be dismissed. The Plaintiff having then elected to take a brewer's lease, a decree was made, the Plaintiff paying the costs of the suit. The Plaintiff (a publican) agreed to take a lease of a public-house belonging to the Defendant (a brewer), and on the 8th of June 1838 they signed the following memorandum of agreement:- June 8th, 1857.-Memorandum of agreement for a lease of fourteen years of a house intended for a tavern, situated at Aldershot, and called The Malakoff, between William Cave on the one part, and James Barnard on the other part. The said James Barnard agrees to take and the said William Cave to let the above-named house for the term specified, and at the yearly rent of 120 per annum. As witness our hands. william cave. james barnard. The draft of a lease was prepared in the form of a " brewer's lease," obliging the tenant to purchase the beer consumed in his house from the lessor, the brewer. The Plaintiff refused to concur in that restriction, and insisted on having a lease as of a " free public-house," and he filed a claim for the specific performance of this written agreement. The Defendant objected that the real agreement come to between the parties, though not so expressed iti the written instrument, was that the lease should be a "brewer's lease." Considerable parol evidence was entered into, which it is unnecessary to state, the Court having come to the conclusion, on the conflict of the evidence, that the parties had really agreed for a brewer's lease, though it was not so expressed in the written agreement. Mr. Palmer and Mr. Cory, for the Plaintiff. [254] Mr. Follett and Mr. Wickens, for the Defendant. Tmonsend v. Slang-room (6 Ves. 328); Watson, v. Marston (4 De G. M. & G. 230), were cited. Dec. 11. the master of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT