Denn, on the demise of Jacklin, against Cartright
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 June 1803 |
| Date | 15 June 1803 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 740
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[29] denn, on the demise of jacklin, against cartright. Wednesday, June 15th, 1803. A. agrees by parol to sell an estate to B. on certain terms, provided B. will continue C. his tenant, not for one year only, but from year to year, (C. having just before been let into possession under a contract for the purchase of the estate, which he had failed to pay for in time, and had therefore forfeited his deposit;) and A. thereupon agreed to take C.'s forfeited deposit as part of the purchase-money: A. and B. afterwards reduce their agreement respecting the purchase into writing, in which no notice is taken of the stipulation concerning C.'s tenancy. Yet held, that this stipulation, being collateral to the written agreement, was binding upon B.; and that the agreement operated as a tenancy for two years certain at least, though no rent was then mentioned, but was to be 4 EAST, 30. DENN V. CARTRIGHT 741 settled afterwards; and that the tenancy could not be put an end to at the end of the first year by six months' previous notice to quit. In ejectment for a messuage and lands, tried before G-raham B. at the last Lincoln Assizes, the demise was laid on the 14th of May 1802, and the notice to quit was dated 24th September 1801, and served a week before Old Michaelmas; and it was to quit the messuage and lands, holden by the defendant of M. Atkinson, at the end of the then current year of his tenancy. It appeared that the estate in question originally belonged to Atkinson, and was by him contracted to be sold to the defendant Cart-right, who was let into possession under that contract at Old May-Day (12th) 1801, and paid 301. part of the purchase-money, as a deposit for securing the performance of the contract; but not having been able to complete his purchase in time, the 301. became, forfeited. On the llth of July following the lessor of the plaintiff, Jacklin, applied, in company with the defendant, to Atkinson to purchase the estate. Atkinson said there was one condition only on which he would sell to him, which was, that Cartright should continue tenant, not for one year only, but from year to year; to which Jacklin agreed. The treaty for the purchase was then entered upon and concluded for 5501., and the agreement reduced into writing, witnessed by Cartright; but nothing was mentioned in the written agreement respecting the condition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v Tracey
...v. ArnoleENR 1 J. & H. 656. Hayes v. FitzgibbonUNKIR I. R. 4 C. L. 500. Birch v. WrightENR 1 T. R. 378. Denn d. Jacklin v. CartwrightENR 4 East, 29. Doe d. Chadborn v. Green 9 A. & E. 658. Oxley v. JamesENR 13 M. & W. 209. Tayleur v. WildinELR L. R. 3 Ex. 303. Francomb, App., Freeman, Respo......
-
Doe on the demise of Clarke against Smaridge
...have by express contract prevented such determination. In the cases of Agard v. King (Cro. Eliz. 775), Denn dem. Jacklin v. Uartwright (4 East, 29), tiellasis ?. Burbrick (1 Salk. 209, 1 Ld. Kaym. 170), Legg v. Stndvrick (2 Salk. 414), Birch v. Wright (1 T. K. 378, 380), Doe dem. Ohadborn v......
-
M'Creesh v M'Geough
...Before FITZGERALD and DOWSE, BB. M'CREESH and M'GEOUGH. Hyatt v. Griffiths 17 Q. B. 505. Denn v. CartrightENR 4 East, 29. Digby v. AtkinsonENR 4 Camp. 275. Hillingsworth v. StennettENR 2 Esp. 716. Hurley v. HanrahanUNKIR I. R. 1 C. L. 700. Hamerton v. SteadENR 6 B. & C. 483. Knight v. Benne......
-
Doe on the demise of Chadborn against Green
...of Buller J. in Birch v. Wright (1 T. E. 378), where he collects and comments on several cases, and by Denn dem. Jacklin v. Cartwright (4 East, 29). Then what is the effect of the proviso as to notice engrafted on such a tenancy? It cannot apply to the end of the first year rather than the ......