Clarke v Bickers
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 June 1845 |
| Date | 24 June 1845 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 60 E.R. 506
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Beresford v. Browning, 1875, L. R. 20 Eq. 577; S. C. 9 Jur. 678.
Covenants. Partnership.
[639] clarke v. bickers. June 24, 1845. [See Beresford v. Browning, 1875, L. K. 20 Eq. 577; S. C. 9 Jur. 678.] Covenants. Partnership. Premises were demised to A. and B., who were co-partners, upon which they carried on their partnership business. A. died during the lease, and, after his death, his executors carried on the business in co-partnership with B. on the premises. Held, nevertheless, that the covenants in the lease, which were joint only, were not to be considered as several as well as joint, so as to make A.'s estate liable for breaches of the covenants which occurred after his death. By an indenture, dated the 1st of April 1825, and made between the Plaintiff of the one part, and the Defendant, W. Mote, and J. Appleford, therein described as of Little Warner Street, in the county of Middlesex, pawnbrokers, of the other part, the Plaintiff, in consideration of the rents and covenants thereinafter reserved and contained, on the part of Mote and Appleford, their executors, administrators and assigns, to be paid and performed, demised to them two messuages in Little Warner Street, for twenty-one years from the 25th of March preceding, at the yearly rent of 63 ; and they, for themselves, their executors, administrators and assigns, covenanted with the Plaintiff, his heirs, executors and administrators, to pay the rent and keep the messuages in repair. The bill, after stating as above, alleged that, at the date and execution of the indenture, Mote and Appleford carried on the business of a pawnbroker in partnership together; and that the premises comprised in the lease were thereby demised to them as such partners and far the purposes of the partnership business: that, after the date and execution of the indenture, Mote and Appleford carried on their partnership 14 SIM. MO. CLABKB. V. BICKEKS 507 business upon the premises comprised in the indenture, and continued to carry on the same there down to Appleford's death; that Appleford died in May 1826, having, by his will, appointed the Defendants Bickers and Stephen Appleford his executors : that the rent reserved by the lease being in arrear since the 29th of September 1844, and the demised premises having fallen into a state of dilapidation, and [640] the Defendants having refused either to pay the rent or to repair the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v Tyndall
...Keightley v. WatsonENR 3 Exch. 716. Bradburne v. BotfieldENR 14 M. & W. 559. Wilmer v. CurreyENR 2 De G. & Sm. 347. Clarke v. BickersENR 14 Sim. 639. Beer v. BeerENR 12 C. B. 60. Tippet v. HawkeyENR 3 Mod. 264. Copland v. Laporte 3 Ad.& Ell. 517. Robinson v. WalkerENRENR 7 Mod. 154; 1 Salk.......
-
White v Tyndall
...Atk. 89. Tippins v. CoatesENR 18 Beav. 401. Eccleston v. Clipsham 1 Wms. Saunders,153. Levy v. SaleUNK 37 L. T. 709. Clarke v. BickersENR 14 Sim. 639. pitsley v. WatsonENR 3 Exch. 723. Enys v. Donnithorpe 2 Burrows,1190. Copland v. Laporte 3 A. & E. 571. Towers v. MooreENR 2 Vernon,98. Sumn......
-
Frederick Squire, Richard King, and John Squire, - Appellants; Mary Philippa Whitton, - Respondent
...seeking to enforce it; Sumner v. Powell (2 Mer. 30; Tur. and K. 423), Hebble-white v. M'Morine (6 Mees. and W. 200), Clarke v. Bickers (14 Sim. 639). The alleged bond is also, both upon the principle of the authorities and the Statute of Frauds, void as a guarantie for the debt of Morgan, a......