Buckworth v Simpson and Benner
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1835 |
| Date | 01 January 1835 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 1317
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 5 Tyr, 344; 1 Gale, 38; 4 L. J. Ex. 104. Applied, Deakin v. Penniall, 1848, 2 Ex. 320; Elliott v. Johnson, 1866, L. R. 2 Q. B. 124; Cornish v. Stubbs, 1870, L. R. 5 C. P. 339; Phillips v. Miller, 1875, L. R. 10 C. P. 425. Referred to, Smith v. Eggington, 1874, L. R. 9 C. P. 157; Williams v. Heales, ib. 186; Ramage v. Womack, [1900] 1 Q. B. 121; Manchester Brewery Company v. Coombs, [1901] 2 Ch. 615.
buckworth v. himvson and BuNNER. Exch. of Pleas. 1835. - An action of assumpsit for the breach of an implied contract to keep premises in repair is transitory and not local. - Where an instrument, which was in reality a lease, i bat Which bore an agreement stamp for 15s., was executed in 1805, at which period the amount of the stamp on a lease, according to the act then in force, was LI. 10s., but was stamped in 1834 under the provisions of the 37 Geo. .'!, c. 136, 1818 BUCK WORTH V. SIMPSON 1 C. M. fc R. 835 s. 2, with a stamp of 11., being the amount of the stamp then in force :-Held, that the- proper duty had been paid.-A. demised to B. certain lands and premises for one year certain, and then from year to year so long as the parties should think proper, with power to determine it on giving notice to quit; and the lease contained various terms arid conditions as to the management of the lands and repairing the buildings. The lessee died, and his executors entered into the occupation of the premises, and continued to occupy and paid rent:-Held, that they were chargeable in their personal character upon the terms contained in the original demise; their continuing to occupy, and the landlord's abstaining from giving notice to quit, raising an implied promise on their parts to abide by the terms of the original contract. [S. C. 5 Tyr. 344; 1 Gale, 38; 4 L. J. Ex. 104. Applied, Deakrn v. Pm.uia.ll, 1H48, 2 Ex. 3-20; Elliott v. Johnston, 1866, L R. "2 Q. B. 124; Cornish v. Mublm, 1870, L. R. 5 C. P. 339; I'liillips v. Miller, 1875, L. li. 10 C. P. 4'J5. Referred to, Smith \. Efjgimjton, 1874, L. R. 9 C. P. 157 ; Williams v. Healea, ib. 180; fiitmage v. ffo?)iack, [1900] 1 Q. B. 121 ; Manchester Brewery Company v. OoomLx, [1901] 2 Ch. 615.] Assumpsit. The first count of the declaration stated that, by an agreement dated 6th December, 1805, M. M. Duckworth, J. C. Reeding, and P. Alaboine, as trustees and testamentary guardians of the plaintiff, let a messuage, land, and premises, in the county of Lincoln, to one William Barber, to have and to hold, from the 6th day of April then next ensuing, for and during the term of one year from thence to be complete and ended, and thenceforward from year to year so long as all parties should think proper, either of them giving notice in writing to the other of his wish and intention to determine the said demise and tenancy, at least six mouths previous to the expiration of any one year, at the rent therein mentioned. The declaration then set out various undertakings by the said William Barber as to the management of the farm, and also a promise by him to keep the buildings and premises in complete repair, and to leave them in good and tenantable repair at the end of the year when they should be quitted. It then alleged that the plaintiff came of age 22nd December, 1815 ; and that, in [835] consideration that he had undertaken to let the premises to William Barber on the same terms as in the agreement made with his guardians, the said William Barber undertook to perform the same in all things on his behalf to be performed ; that, on the 5th of January, 1821, the said William Barber made his will, and authorized and directed the defendants, together with one 0. M. Edmunds, to continue his business in trust for certain persons arid purposes, and died on thu 2nd of March, 1821 ; that the two defendants proved the will, and that all the estate, right, title, and interest of the said William Barber, of, in, and to the said demised premises came by assignment to the defendants. It then further alleged, that, in consideration of the premises, and that the plaintiff' would permit them to continue in possession of the demised premises as such assignees, arid would omit to give them six months' notice to quit at the proper time and according to the terms in the agreement mentioned, the defendants undertook to perform the agreement in all things to bo performed on the behalf of the said William Barber. The declaration then averred that the said William Barber was tenant to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Houlden v Smith
...on his business at Cambridge, out of the district assigned to the Spilsby Court. The defendant, on the 8th July 1847, gave leave to () 1 C. M. & R. 834; S. C. 5 Tyr. 520. (b) See Doe dem. Davenish v. Mo/at, 15 Q. B. 257. 324 HOULDEN V. SMITH 14 Q. B. 842. two persons of the names of Young a......
-
Morrogh v Alleyne
...520. Ward v. HartpoleENR 3 Bligh. 470. Muskerry v. Chinnery Ll. & G. temp. Sug. 185. Roe v. WardENR 1 H. Bl. 97. Buckworth v. SimpsonENR 1 C. M. & r. 834. Johnson v. The Churchwardnes of St. Petr's Hereford 4 A. & E. 520. White v. M'CannUNK 1 I. C. L. R. 205. Dolby v. Iles 11 A. & E. 335. M......
-
Broadcast Australia Pty Ltd v Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)
...for Land and Water Conservation v NTL Australia Pty Ltd (2002) 122 LGERA 53 at 58–59 [17]. 17Buckworth v Simpson (1835) 1 CM&R 834 [ 149 ER 1317]; Pinhorn v Souster (1853) 8 Ex 763 [ 155 ER 18Stock Motor Ploughs Ltd v Forsyth; Miller v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (1932) 48 CLR 128 at 136 per D......
-
Lyle v Smith
...2 B. & P. 565. (7) [1897] 1 Ch. 767. (8) 44 Ch. D. 503. (9) [1901] 2 Ch. 608. (1) 1 Sm. L. C. (11th ed.), p. 591. (1) 5 C. B. 920. (2) 1 C. M. & R. 834. (3) L. R. 5 C. P. at p. (4) L. R. 2 Q. B. at p. 127. (5) [1902] 1 I. R. at p. 138. (6) 1 Sm. L. C. (11th ed.), p. 55. (7) [1891] A. C. at ......