Copeland v Wattss and Another, Executors of Gubbins
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 December 1815 |
| Date | 04 December 1815 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 412
IN THE COMMON PLEAS
[95] in the common pleas December 4, 1815 copeland v. wattss and another, executors of gubbins (A solicitor to a third person, is bound to produce his client's lease, executed by the defendant, provided the production will not operate to the prejudice of his client. But if the reading of such a document would operate to the prejudice of a third person, the Court will [not] direct it to be read An acceptance of a surrender of a lease is not to be presumed from the circumstance of the rent having been paid, not by the original tenant, but by a third person.) Action by the lessor on covenants in the lease against the defendants as the executors of Gubbins the lessee Plea, non est factum (there were several special pleas). It appeared that both the lease and counterpart had several years ago been found amongst the documents of Mr King an attorney, lately deceased ; that before the bnnpng of the action search had been made in the iron box in which both lease and counterpart had before been deposited, when the lease was found bearing date in the year 1784, but the counterpart was missing In order to prove the execution of the counterpart, a witness was called upon to produce an under-lease of the same premises of the same date with the original lease by Gubbms to one Cole, and which recited the original lease. The witness demurred to the production of this under-lease, stating that he was solicitor to Mr. Cole and that he conceived it to be doubtful at the least, whether the interest of his client might not be prejudiced by the production of the under-lease. [96} Gibbs C. J. after examining the under-lease said, that he was of opinion that the production of this document...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
JP Morgan Multi-Strategy Fund LP v Macro Fund Ltd
...3 All E.R. 132, referred to. (9) Calcraft v. Guest, [1898] 1 Q.B. 759; (1898), 78 L.T. 283, not followed. (10) Copeland v. WattsENR(1815), 1 Stark. 95; 171 E.R. 412, referred to. (11) Corsen v. DuboisENR(1816), Holt. 239; 171 E.R. 228, referred to. (12) Derby & Co. Ltd. v. Weldon (No. 8), [......
-
Parkhurst v Lowten
...Rex v. Watkinson, 2 Str. 1122. (Jobden v. Kendrick, 4 T. .R. 431. Bishop of Winchester v. Fournier, 2 Ves. iSW. 445. Copeland v. Waifa, 1 Stark. 95. (7) It seems that the privilege prevails although the client is not a party to the suit. Sloman v. Herne, 2 Esp. 695. .Rea; v. Withers, 2 Camp......
- Mattey Securities Ltd v Ervin and Others
-
Kingston Communications (hull) Plc+stargas Nominees Limited+stargas Nominees Limited V. Stargas Nominees Limited+convergys Emea Limited+kingston Communications (hull) Limited
...accept payment of rent from the person who offered it without, by receiving it, discharging the tenant (Copeland v Wattss and Another, (1815) 1 Stark. 95). This was not a case where a sum had been tendered by way of compromise and accepted by the other party, or where payment had been tende......