Bowes, Hutt, Wood and Palmer against Croll
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 April 1856 |
| Date | 25 April 1856 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 119 E.R. 859
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 4 W. R. 484. Followed, Martin v. Smith, 1874, L. R. 9 Ex. 53.
[255] bowes, htjtt, wood and palmer against croll. Friday, April 25th, 1856. Declaration stated that, by contract between plaintiffs and defendant, defendant agreed to procure, as soon as possible and within four months from the making of the contract, sufficient land for a communication between a certain railway and certain gas works, and stowing a certain quantity of coals, " and to grant a lease of the same land to plaintiffs for a term of five years from the date of the said contract," determinable at the end of three years " of the said term " by notice from plaintiffs, which notice never was given ; that plaintiffs should pay to defendant for the land half yearly an annual rent equivalent to 4 per cent, on the money paid by defendant for the purchase, the first payment to be made six months after possession of the land should be given to plaintiffs, from which time only the rent was to run : and that, " upon the termination of the said term of five years, by effluxion of time or by notice," defendant should pay to plaintiffs all the moneys expended by them for laying down sidings for the communication, and building sheds and erections on the land for the purposes mentioned in the contract (less 5 per cent, for deterioration). Allegation : that, in part performance of the contract, defendant procured the land and put plaintiffs into possession ; and that plaintiffs occupied and enjoyed the land from that time " until the termination of the said term of five years as hereinafter mentioned ;" and during the term they so occupied &c., did, pursuant to the contract, expend money for laying down sidings, &c.; " that the said term of five years has expired and terminated, to wit by effluxion of time;" that all things necessary had happened to entitle plaintiffs to receive from defendant, and render defendant liable to pay, the money expended (less &c.): but defendant had not paid.-Plea : " That no lease of the said land was ever granted to the plaintiffs by the defendant, pursuant 860 BOWES V. CBOLL 6 EL. BL. 25(5. to the said agreement; nor did the said term of five years in the said agreement mentioned and contemplated evercome|into, or have, any existence.-On demurrer: Held a bad plea. For that the granting of the lease by defendant was not a condition precedent to his liability to pay the money ; and the meaning of the word " term" was not, in the agreement, restricted to a term created by lease, but included a period of five years during which the plaintiffs should occupy, after being put into possession under the contract. [S. C. 4 W. E. 484. Followed, Martin v. Smith, 1874, L. E. 9 Ex. 53.] The first count of the declaration charged that a certain contract or agreement was made and entered into, in writing, by and between plaintiffs and defendant, by which, among other things, defendant contracted and agreed with plaintiffs to procure as soon as possible, and within not exceeding four months from the making of the said contract, such a sufficient quantity of land as might be required for the means of communication between a certain railway, to wit The East and West India Docks and Birmingham Junction Eailway, and certain gas works, to wit The Great Central [256] Grss Consumer's Company's works, at Bow Common, in Middlesex, and for ctowing at least 15,000 tons of coals near those works, and to grant a lease of the same land to plaintiffs for a terra of five years from the date of the said contract, to wit from the 6th day of September 1850, detenninable at the end of the first three years of the said term by the plaintiffs, upon giving a certain notice in the said contract in that behalf mentioned, but which notice never was given : and it was in and by the said contract further declared and agreed, by and between plaintiff and defendant, that plaintiffs should pay to defendant for the said land half yearly a rent which would be equivalent to 41. per cent, per annum upon the money which should be paid by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gruhn v M Pupkewitz & Sons (Pty) Ltd
...Spice Works v Conten Holdings (Pty.) Ltd., 1959 (2) SA op bl. 199E - G; Car Bargains v Nhlanhla, 1971 (1) SA 214; 1957 Annual Survey, bl. 255. (ii) Waar die verweerder nie toegang tot dokumente het nie, bv., 'n borg wat aangespreek word vir die H hoofskuldenaar met wie hy haaks is se skuld ......
-
Doody v Nolan
...5 Eq. 613. Meara v. Meara 8 Ir. Ch. R. 37. Northcote v. UnderhillENR 1 Salk. 199. Pordage v. ColeENR 1 Wms. Saund. 548. Bowes v. CrollENR 6 E. & B. 255. Pitman v. WoodburyENR 3 Ex. 4. Swatman v. AmblerENR 8 Ex. 72. Wood v. The Governor and Company of the Copper Miners in EnglandENR 14 C. B.......
-
Botha v Stadsklerk van Middelburg, NO en 'n Ander
...Mnr. Ackermann voer aan dat dit op so 'n analoë situasie slaan dat hierdie uitspraak ten volle op my bindend is. Die pit daarvan verskyn op bl. 255 van die Hofverslag wat ek "Now, it seems to me, that it is not necessary to decide whether the contention of the applicant or the respondent is......
-
Secretary for Inland Revenue v Cape Lime Co Ltd
...te vervaardig wat wesentlik verskillend van bedoelde stof is. Sien I.T.C. 1006, 25 S.A.T.C. 248 te bl. 520; I.T.C. 1052, 26 S.A.T.C. 253 te bl. 255. C Dit volg dus dat die gebruik van masjinerie aan die bepalings van art. 12 (1) en 12 (2) voldoen slegs indien bedoelde gebruik primêr en regs......