Cox v Rodbard
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 July 1810 |
| Date | 03 July 1810 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 30
Common Pleas Division
30 --- V. HAWKINS 3 TAUNT. 13. been said, that in most of the cases there have been positive agreements for a future lease, and that there is none such here ; but the real question is, what did these parties intend? Now the Plaintiff's lessor agrees to let to the Defendant, (not using the strong words which are in Barry v. Nvgent, and other cases,) all that farm, except, &c., and he goes on to make particular provisions, and then he says, " at the yearly rent of 2281., and under all usual covenants and agreements as between landlord and tenant where the premises are situate :" this is not the language in which a lawyer would introduce into a lease the techni-[73]-cal covenant for further assurance, but contemplates the entire making of an original lease. Then follows a partial apportionment of the rent from Michaelmas to Christmas, which I do not understand ; for the date is the 2d of October : but then comes an apportionment of the rent for the excepted premises. Now, do these words imply, or not, that one of the parties should grant and the other accept a further lease ? Would any landlord or tenant of common sense enter on a term for 21 years, without ascertaining what were the terms on the one side and the other by which they were to be bound for 21 years, and what was to be the rent apportioned for the excepted premises ? The landlord thinks he is injured by a breach of covenant, and brings an action ; and then it is to be gone into what are the proper covenants according to the custom of the country In like manner they must go to a jury to see what is the rent of the excepted land. Does not then this agreement clearly imply that the parties meant to have a lease? The landlord did not mean that the tenant should hold, nor did the tenant mean that the landlord should have the rent, without previously ascertaining what was the rent, and what were the terms on which he should hold. We must therefore presume that they meant to have a further lease : and then, according to the doctrine of the modern eases, no present interest is conveyed under this instrument : and it would be a very wise rule that wherever one person is about to grant, and another to take a lease, until the lease was actually executed, no interest at law should pass. As to the question, what are usual covenants, it is an endless source of litigation. I have known parties long hung up at an enquiry before a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shaw v The Marquis of Worcester
...that no advantage shall be taken of any error in proceeding, and particularly of the omission to assign breaches. Then, in Cox v. Eodbard (3 Taunt. 74), it was expressly decided that no suggestion was necessary upon a warrant of attorney with a penal sum conditioned for payment of a less su......
-
Baker, Petitioner; and Pettigrue, Respondent; and of The Act of 5 & 6 W. 4, C. 55
...breaches,” &c.—it has been held, that judgments on warrant of attorney are not included: Austerbury v. Morgan, 2 Taunt. 195; Cox v. Rodbard3 Taunt. 74; Kinnersley v. Mussen, 5 Taunt, 264. Upon the corresponding Irish act, 9 W. 3, c. 10, s. 8, there has been some diversity of opinion among t......
-
Isabella Nuttall v John C. Nuttall Same v Same
...v. FranklinENR 7 Taunt. 9. Harrod v. BentonENR 8 B. & C. 217; S. C. 2 M. & Ryl. 130. Martin v. MartinENR 3 B. & Ad. 934. Cox v. RodbardENR 3 Taunt. 74. Cooke v. Jones Cowp. 727. Fell v. Riley Ibid, 281. AnonymousENR 2 Ken. 294. And see Hayes v. Hare, 1 H. Bl. 664; sed vide Gennor v. Maemaho......
-
Stratton v Codd
...2 Taunt. 195. Tilby v. BestENR 16 East, 163. Leveridge v. Forty 1 M. & Sel. 706. Anonymous 2 Law Rec. O. S. 479. Cox v. RodbardENR 3 Taunt. 74. H. Smythe, in reply, cited Bindon v. O'Dell 1 Hay. & J. 366, n. O'Callagham v. Marchioness of ThomondENR 3 Taunt. 82. Kinnersley v. MussenENR 5 Tau......