Carter v Warne and another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 February 1830 |
| Date | 15 February 1830 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 172 E.R. 665
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
S. C. Mood. & M. 479. Referred to, How v. Kennett, 1835, 3 A & E. 659, R v. Inhabitant, of Pakefield, 1836, 4 A. & E. 612. Overruled, White v. Hunt, 1870, L R 6 Ex. 31.
Sittings at Westminster, after Hilary Term, 1830, before Lord Tenterden, C. J. Feb 15th, 1830. carter v wasne and another (Trustees under an assignment for the benefit of creditors, are entitled (like assignees under the Bankrupt and Insolvent Debtors Acts), to a reasonable time to ascertain whether property held under a lease by the debtor, can be made available for the benefit of the creditors or not, but if they act in such a way as to render the premises of less value to the lessor, or deal with the property 666 CARTER V. WARNE 4 CAB. & P. 192. as if the lease were vested in them, they will, by that conduct, make themselves personally liable for the payment of rent and performance of covenants ) [S. 0. Mood. & M. 479. Referred to, How v. Kentu-lt, 1835, 3 A & E. 659 , R v. Inhabitants of Pakefield, 1836, 4 A. & E. 612. Overruled, White v. Hunt, 1870, L R 8 Ex. 31.] The declaration stated, in substance, that on the 24th March, 1824, by indenture between the plaintiff and one James Edwards, the said plaintiff demised to the said James Edwards, his executors and administrators, a house and garden at Twickenham, for twenty-one years, from the 29th of September then next ensuing, at the rent of £20, payable quarterly ; and that Edwards covenanted to pay the rent and to keep the premises in repair. It then averred, that, on the 16th ot May, 1829, " all the estate, right, title, interest, term of years yet to come and unexpired, property, profit, claim, and demand whatsoever, of him the said James Edwards, of, in, and to the said demised premises, with the appurtenances, by assignment thereof then and there made, legally came to and vested in the said defendants ; whereupon and whereby the said defendants then and there entered into and upon all and singular the said demised premises, with the appurtenances, and became and were thereof possessed, and continued thereof possessed, until and upon the 29th day of September, 1829, &c. The declaration then claimed two quarters' rent, as having become due from the defendants since the assignment , and also complained that the defendants did not repair, but that, on the contrary, the premises, with the fixtures, &c., had become ruinous, dilapidated, &c. The defendants pleaded, first, that the indenture was not Edwards's deed. Secondly, that all the estate, &e. of Edwards in the premises did not vest in them by assignment, as alleged in the declaration. And thirdly (protest-[192]-mg that the estate of Edwards did not come to them by assignment), that they did keep the premises in repair The plaintiff was the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King against The Inhabitants of Pakefield
...he having acted on the deed, as appears by the doctrine assumed in How v. Kennett (3 A. & E. 659. 5 N. & M. 1), and Garter v. Warne (M. & M. 479); he had a right to the occupation for the purpose of selling, and might have maintained trespass. After the sale, the purchaser would be the occu......
-
How, Clerk, against Kennett and Gough
...words used in the deed of assignment were not sufficient to pass Hawkins's interest to the assignees; in answer to which Carter v. Warne (M. & M. 479), was cited. The defendants' counsel then submitted to the jury that no sufficient evidence appeared of an occupation, or contract to occupy.......