Bristow v Wood
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 1844 |
| Date | 06 November 1844 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 63 E.R. 508
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 14 L. J. Ch. 50; 9 Jur. 99.
[480] bristow v. wood. Nov. 6, 1844. [S. C. 14 L. J. Ch. 50; 9 Jur. 99.] Purchaser discharged from his agreement upon a doubt whether the land was not bound by a covenant of which he had not notice. By indentures of lease and release, dated respectively the 15th and 16th of May 1833, a piece of land known by the name of The New Key, situate near Liverpool, was conveyed to the Plaintiff, Bristow, in fee; and by indentures of lease and release, dated respectively the 16th and 17th of November 1833, Bristow, for the consideration mentioned in the release, conveyed a portion of the same piece of land to Jenkins in fee. The indenture of release of the 17th November 1833 contained the following mutual covenant:-"And the said Simon Bristow, for himself, his heirs, executors and administrators, as to that part of the field called The New Key which is not conveyed by him to the said Henry Jenkins and his heirs, hereby covenants with the said Henry Jenkins, his appointees, heirs and assigns, and the said Henry Jenkins, for himself, his heirs, executors and administrators, as to the said part of the field hereby conveyed to him, hereby covenants with the said Simon Bristow, his appointees, heirs and assigns, that no houses in courts, or any houses of less value than 300, shall be erected or built upon their respective parcels of land, or any part or parts thereof; and that they, the said Simon Bristow and Henry Jenkins, respectively, shall not, nor will, erect or permit or suffer to be erected or made upon the same respective parcels of land, or any part or parts thereof respectively, any steam-engine or manufactory, nor carry on, nor permit or suffer to be carried on, in or upon the same, or any building to be erected thereupon, any trade or business whatsoever which can, shall, or may be considered a nuisance to the neighbourhood." Bristow subsequently entered into an agreement for sale of the remaining portion of The New Key (with other property) to the Defendant, Wood, in fee-simple in possession, [481] free from incumbranees. An objection, however, was taken to the 1 COLL. 482. DOYNE V. CABTWEIGHT 509 title, on the part of the Defendant, on the ground that the covenant which had been entered into, and of which the Defendant had no notice when he signed the contract, was not merely...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larkin v Lord Rosse
...LARKIN and LORD ROSSE. Bristow v. WoodENR 1 Coll. 480. Burnell v. Browne 1 Jac. & Wal. 168. Gibson v. Spurrier Peak. Ad. Cas. 49. Seaman v. Vawdry 16 Ves. 390. Barton v. Lord DownesENR Fl. & Kel. 505. Lyddall v. WestonENR 2 Atk. 19. Seaman v. Vawdry 16 Ves. 390. 70 CASES IN EQUITY. not to a......