Cox v Bent and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 November 1828 |
| Date | 10 November 1828 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 1031
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 2 Moo. & P. 281; 7 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 68.
[185] Cox v. bent and others. Nov. 10,1828. [S. C. 2 Moo. & P. 281; 7 L. J. C. P. (0. S.) 68.] Plaintiff, who had entered on premises under an agreement for a lease, admitted a charge of half a year's rent in an account between him and his landlord:-Held, that this constituted him a tenant from year to year, and liable to distress. Eeplevin for taking the Plaintiffs goods in a place called the Newcastle Brewery. Avowry, that the Plaintiff for a year ending March 25, 1827, held the Newcastle Brewery as tenant to the Defendants, by virtue of a demise thereof to him, at the yearly rent of 4501., payable half-yearly on 25th March and 29th September, and, because a year's rent was due, the Defendants avowed the taking, &c. Pleas, non tenuit and riens in arriere, and issue thereon. At the trial before Gaaalee J., last Stafford Summer assizes, it appeared that the Plaintiff held the premises in question under an agreement bearing date 7th December 1824, by which the Defendants agreed to let and demise them to him "in consideration of the rent of 4501., and of the covenants and agreements to be entered into by the said C. Cox, in a certain indenture of lease to be executed on or before the 29th day of September next ensuing." The Plaintiff had paid no rent, but an account 1032 BEATON V. BENEDICT 5 BINO. 186. of vaiioua dealings between him and the Defendants had been presented to him by the Defendants' clerk, the first item of which was, "Half a year's rent, 2501.;" when the Plaintiff said, " It is overcharged 251.;" and the clerk thereupon altered it to 2251. The account had been disputed in other respects. The learned Judge thought that, by thus assenting to that item in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vincent v Godson
...v. Benett (3 Bing. 361) ; and accounting for rent, or admitting it to be due, as in this case, is equivalent to payment, Cox v. Bent (5 Bing. 185). The principle which limits the right to distrain for rent to the particular subject of demise does not apply in cases like the present, when th......
-
Lessee Delap v Leonard
...Bat. 80. Lessee Faussett V. Hall Al. & N. 248. Pluck V. Digges 5 Bli. P. C. N. S. 41. Lessee Denny V. O'Connell 1 Longf. & T. 629. BentENR 5 Bing. 185. Knight V. BennettENR 3 Bing. 361. Rawlins'caseUNK 4 Rep. 52. Jackson V. Jackson 2 Law Rec. N. S. 36, and n. Eyston V. Studel Plowd. 465. Do......
-
Fahy v O'Donnell
...The Chief Justice was present at only part of the argument. FAHY and O'DONNELL Brathwayte v. HitchcockENR 10 M. & W. 494. Cox v. BentENR 5 Bing. 185. Gallaway v. HerbertENR 4 T. R. 480. Clayton v. Blakey 2 Sm L. C. 103. Thunder v. BelcherENR 3 East, 449. Hamerton v. Stead 3 B. & Cr. 478, 48......
-
Dease, Executor of Matthew O'Reilly, v William O'Reilly
...1 Swans. 338, note. Ex parte SmythENR 3 Hare, 173. Brown v. AmyotENR 2 Taunt. 148. Hegan v. JohnsonENR 3 Bing. 361. Knight v. BenettENR 5 Bing. 185. Cox v. Bent 5 Ir. Law Rep. 305. Hare v. Cely Cro. Eliz. 143. Wilson v. MackrethENR 3 Burr. 1824. Crosby v. WadsworthENR 6 East, 602. Hanley v.......