Davies v Underwood
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 November 1857 |
| Date | 20 November 1857 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 235
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 27 L J. Ex 113; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 1223; 6 W. R. 105. Referred to, Williams v. Williams, 1874, L. R. 9 C. P. 666; Morgan v. Hardy, 1886, 17 Q B. D. 780, Joyner v. Weeks, (1891) 2 Q. B. 31.
daviks v. underwood. Nov. 20, 1857. - The defendant, an under -lessee, who had covenanted with the plaintiff, his lessor, to keep, and at the expiration or sooner determination of the term, to leave and deliver up the premises in repair, allowed them to become out of repc\ir. While they remained in this condition, the plaintiff having committed a forfeiture by nonpayment of rent, the superior landlord brought ejectment, and evicted the plaintiff and defendant. Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover against the defendant substantial damages for the non-repair of the premises. [S. C. -27 L J. Ex 113; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 1223 ; 6 W. R. 105. Referred to, v. fraiianu, 1874, L. ft. 9 C. P. 666; Moiyan v. Haidy, 1886, 17 Q B. D. 780, Joyner v. Weeks, [1891] 2 Q. B 31.] Covenant. The declaration stated that on the 25th of Apnl, 1842, by indenture between the plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff let to the defendant a piece of [571] ground with the messuage thereon erected, &c., to hold for 21 years from Lady Day 1842; and that the defendant covenanted with the plaintiff that the defendant, his executors, &c., would at his and then own costs and charges, from time to time and at all times during the term, well and sufficiently uphold, support, sustain, &c., amend and keep in good order and condition the messuage, &c , with all proper reparations, &c. ; and the said premises being in all things well and sufficiently repaired, upheld, supported, &c , should, and would at the end or othei sooner determination of the term thereby granted, peaceably and quietly leave, surrender and yield up to the plaintiff his executors, &c. Averment: that the defendant entered and was possessed for the term. Breach, that the defendant did not dunug the teim well and sufficiently repair, &c ; but permitted the demised premises to become i uinous, &c., for want of needful repair. Pleas. First, that the defendant did repair. Secondly, that after the making of the indenture and before the breaches, one Arthur Wells, who was entitled as against the plaintiff and defendant to the possession of the premises, by reason of certain breaches by the plaintiff of certain covenants entered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morrogh v Alleyne
...Digby v. AtkinsonENR 4 Camp. 275. Lessee of Friend v. Scott Batt. 179, note. Hyndman v. BaileyINTL 8 I. L. R. 143. Davies v. UnderstoodENR2 H. & N. 570. Pepper v. Newenham 4 Law Rec. 155. Cuthberston v. LandonENR 4 H. & N. 742. Dolny v. Iles 11 A, & e. 335. Delaney v. FoxENR 2 C. B. N. S. 7......
-
Gilligan v Silke
...[1934] Ch. 298. (14) [1950] 2 K. B. 237. (1) [1943] I. R. 380. (1) 18 C. B. N. S. 776. (2) [1891] 2 Q. B. 31. (3) 1 T. L. R. 484. (4) 2 H. & N. 570. (5) 2 Man. & G. 39. (6) 35 W. R. 588. (1) [1943] I. R. 380. (2) [1934] Ch. 298. (1) [1943] I. R. 380. (1) 17 Q. B. D. 770. (2) [1924] 1 K. B. ......
-
Metge v Kavanagh
...DenhamUNK 1 Jebb & S. 416; 1 Ir. L. R. 100. Mills v. The Guardians of the East London UnionELR L. R. 8 C. P. 79. Davies v. UnderwoodENR 2 H. & N. 570. Macnamara v. Vincent 2 Ir. Ch. R. 481. Bell v. HaydenUNK 9 Ir. C. L. R. 301. Williams v. WilliamsELR L. R. 9 C. P. 659. Maddock v. MalletUNK......
-
Beattie v Quirey
...BEATTIE and QUIREY. Vivian v. Champion 2 Lord Raym. 1125. Davies v. UnderwoodENR 2 H. & N. 570. Nixon v. Denham 1 J. & S. 416. Bell v. HaydenUNK 9 Ir. C. L. R. 301. Boughton's CaseUNK 5 Rep. 24 a. Abbots v. Johnson 3 Ruls. 233. Barkly v. Kempstow Cro. Eliz. 123. Warwick v. RichardsonENR 10 ......