Cardwell v Lucas
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 691
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 2 Gale, 203; 6 L. J. Ex. 52. Distinguished, Coode v. Goodman, 1842, 2 Q. B. 580; 2 G. & D. 159.
cahdwell v. lucas. Exch. of Pleas. 1836.-A declaration in covenant stated that one J. H. was seised in fee, and being so seised, by a certain indenture, with the consent and approval of the said J. H. then given, made between the said J. H. of the one part, and the defendant of the other part, (profert, sealed with the seal of the defendant,) it was witnessed, that, for the considerations therein mentioned, he, the said J. H., did demise to the defendant, his executors and administrators, certain premises therein mentioned ; to hold to him, his executors, &c., for the term of eleven years. By virtue of which said indenture, and by permission of the said J. H., the defendant afterwards entered into the premises, and was possessed thereof. That J. H. afterwards made his will, by which he devised the estate to his widow K. for life, remainder to the plaintiff for life. It then averred the death of J. H., and afterwards of E., his wife, whereupon the said plaintiff became and was seised of the reversion of and in the promises in his demesne as of freehold for the term of his natural life, under and by virtue of the will. The defendant pleaded in effect that, although the deed was his deed, yet, that it was not signed by J. H., nor by any agent of the said J. H. thereunto lawfully authorized by writing, nor was any lease for the said term of eleven years put into writing and signed by J. H., or any agent, &c.-Held, on demurrer, that the action was not maintainable by the plaintiff against the defendant for breaches of the covenants in the indenture. [S. C. 2 Gale, 203 ; 6 L. J. Ex. 52. Distinguished, Coode v. Goodman, 1842, 2 Q. B. 580 ; 2 G. & D. 159.] Covenant. The declaration stated, that one John Hodson, before and at the time of the making the indenture thereinafter mentioned, was seised in his demesne as of fee of and in the tenements and premises thereinafter mentioned to h;ive been demised : and being so seised, theretofore, to wit, on the 25th of March, 1825, by [112] a certain indenture then, with the consent and approval of the said John Hodson then given, made between the said John Hodson of the one part, and the said defendant of the other part, (which said indenture, sealed with the seal of the defendant, the plaintiff now brought here into Court), it was witnessed, that for the considerations therein mentioned, he the said John Hodson had demised, granted, leased, set, and to farm let, and by those presents did demise, grant, lease, set, and to farm let, unto the said defendant, his executors and administrators, all that messuage or tenement, &c., [here followed a description of the premises,] to have and to hold the same unto the said defendant, his executors and administrators, as follows; that is to say, as to the meadow lands, which were the closes called &c., from the 25th of December then last past; as to the pasture and arable lands, except the close called &c., which was to be used as an outlet in the last year of the term, from the 2nd of February then last 692 CARDWELL W. LUCAS 2M. &W. 113. past; and as to the said close called &c., and all the residue of the thereby demised premises, from the 12th of May then next, for and during the term of eleven years from those respective days next ensuing, and fully to be complete and ended, yielding and paying therefor as therein mentioned. And the said defendant did for himself, his heirs, executors and administrators, covenant, promise, and agree, to and with the said John Hodson, his heirs and assigns, by those presents, amongst other things, that he the said defendant, his executors and administrators, should and would, with his &nd their cattle, eat and consume upon the thereby demised promises, all the hay, fodder, and straw, wheat straw excepted,which should from time to time during the said term arise therefrom, and should and would yearly and every year, and at the most proper and seasonable time or times in each year during tho said term thereby granted, set, spread, and bestow in an husbandlike manner upon such part or [113] parts of the before-mentioned meadow lands as should be most in need thereof, all the dung, compost, and manure which should thereafter arise or be made from such eating and consumption as aforesaid, or be otherwise made upon the said thereby demised premises, save and except the dung and manure which should arise or be made from such eating and consumption as aforesaid in the last year of the said thereby granted term, which last-mentioned dung and manure should be left in the usual or common midclingstead belonging to the said premises for the use and as the property of the said J. Hodson, his heirs and assigns ; and also save and except so much of the said dung and manure as should be sufficient for planting yearly any quantity of potatoes not exceeding one-fourth part of an acre ; and further, that after the hedges, ditches, gates, stiles, plats, and fences of and belonging to the thereby demised premises, should have been put into good and tenantable repair and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MacNamara v Vincent
...603. Marsh v. WellsENR 2 Sim. & St. 87. The Earl of Portmore v. BunnENR 1 B. & C. 694. Cooch v. Goodman 2 Q. B. 580. Cardwell v. LucasENR 2 M. & W. 111. Moore v. ClarkENR 5 Taunt. 90. Nixon v. Denham 1 Jebb & Sym. 416; S. C. 1 Ir. Law Rep. 100. Warren v. StawellENR 2 Atk. 125. Bridges v. Br......
-
Cooch and Another against Goodman
...The demurrer was argued in this term (a). F. Robinson for the plaintiffs. This case is distinguishable from Oardwell v. Lucas (2 M. & W. 111). That was an action of covenant against a lessee for breach of covenants in a lease, and the declaration stated that H. was seised in fee, and, being......
-
Hungerford v Becher
...D. 159. Rose v. PoultonENR 2 Barn. & Ad. 828. Glazebrook v. WoodrowENR 8 T. R. 366. Doe v. MurlessENR 6 M. & S. 110. Cardwell v. LucasENR 2 M. & W. 111. Kemp v. Goodall Salk. 277. Hosier v. SearleENR 2 Bos. & Pul. 299. Lainson v. Tremere 3 Nev. & Man. 603. Carpenter v. BullerENR 8 M. & W. 2......
-
Honoria Murphy, Catherine Murphy and Elizabeth Murphy, v Ford
...construction, is to be taken as the meaning of that recital. If the plaintiff negatived the words of the covenant, and then said, (a) 2 M. & W. 111. 22 COMMON LAW REPORTS. that on the contrary, such and such a thing was the case, the negaÂÂtive should be confined to the latter allegation, ......