Denton v Richmond
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1833 |
| Date | 01 January 1833 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 595
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 3 Tyr. 630; 2 L. J. Ex. 269.
1C. & M. 735. DENTON V. RICHMOND 595 denton v. richmond. Exch. of Pleas. 1833.-Covenant on an indenture of lease whereby the tenant covenanted to pay the rent of 501. half yearly, and, over and above the reserved rent, the further yearly rent of 51. for every acre of the demised premises which the defendant should convert into tillage, over and above one-third part thereof. Breach assigned for over tillage, whereby defendant became liable to pay 751. additional rent. Pleas, first, that, after the committing of the supposed breaches of covenant, the plaintiff, with a full knowledge of the supposed breaches of covenant, accepted and received from the defendant 251., as and for all the rent clue, in respect of the premises, up to and inclusive, &c., (covering the time alleged in the breach), without demanding or requiring the payment of such penalty or additional rent, and thereby then and there waived, gave up, and dispensed with his right to receive or recover any nomine pceme, or penalty, or such additional rent. Secondly, that, after the committing of the breaches of covenant, the plaintiff, with a full knowledge, &e., waived, gave up, and dispensed with all claim or right on his part to receive, recover, or be paid any such penalty, nomine pcenffi, or additional rent. On a general demurrer both pleas were held insufficient. [S. C. 3 Tyr. 630; 2 L. J. Ex. 269.] Covenant on an indenture, dated the 26th February, 1825, made between the plaintiff of the one part, and the defendant of the other part, by which the plaintiff demised, leased, set, and to farm let, unto the said defendant, his executors, &c., a messuage and certain lands in the said indenture mentioned : To hold the same to the defendant, his executors, &c., for the term of ten years, with liberty for him, the said defendant, his executors, &c., to plough, till, and crop all the said land, in such mwinor as he should think proper, for the first seven years of the said term thereby demised ; and liberty for him, the said defendant, his executors, &c., for the remainder of the said term, to plough, till, and crop the said lands, in such way [735] as he might think proper; but it was reserved that not more than one-third of the said land, or as nearly one-third as the different sizes of the closes would admit, should be- in cropping in any one year; and it was provided, that the said lands that should be so converted into tillage, should, the first year, be cropped with green coleseed, and afterwards might have two succeeding crops of grain, and then laid down with ttyo bushels of rye grass and five pounds of clover on each acre: yielding and paying yearly, and every year during the said term thereby demised, unto the said plaintiff, his heira and assigns, the yearly rent of 501., by equal half-yearly payments, on the 6th of April and the llth of October in each year, clear of all deductions whatsoever, the first payment thereof to be made on the 6th day of April then next; and also yielding and paying, over and above the aforesaid reserved rent, unto the said plaintiff, his heirs and assigns, the further yearly rent or sum of 51. for every acre, and so in proportion for a greater or lesser quantity than an acre of any part of tho said premises, which the said defendant, his executors, &c., should, at any time or times, during tho said term, plough, crop, break up, or convert into or continue in tillage, or manage otherwise than according to the liberties and reservations contained in that indenture, without the consent of the plaintiff, his heirs or assigns, first had or obtained in writing for that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tennent and Others v Neil
...v. WalshUNK 1 Ir. C. L. R. 311. Archibold v. ScullyENR 9 H. L. C. 360. Mayor of Kingston v. Horner Cowp. 102. Denton v. RichmondENR 1 Cr. & M. 734; 3 Tyr. 630. Daly v. BloomfieldUNK 5 Ir. L. R. 65. Jones v. GreenENR 3 y. & J. 298. Gerard v. O'Reilly 3 Dr. & Warr. 414. Keene v. DeardenENR 8 ......
-
Pemberton against Vaughan
...authorities; Lowe v. Peers (4 Bur. 2225), Leighton v. Wales (3 M. & W. 545), Farrant v. Olmius (3 B. & Aid. 692), Denton v. Richmond (1 C. & M. 734; 3 Tyr. 630). (e) 6 A. & E. 438. And see Archer v. Marsh, 6 A. & E. 959. 36 THE QUEEN t'. THE OVERSEERS OF BANGOR 10 Q. B. 90, The agreemert is......
-
The Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of The Borough of Drogheda v Rev. Edward Fairtlough
... ... J., C. P., 68 ... Sibtree v. TrippENR 15 M. & W. 23, 33 ... Fitch v. SuttonENR 5 East, 230 ... Cooper v. Parker Supra ... Denton v. RichmondENRUNK 1 Cr. & M. 734; S. C., 3 Tyrw. 630 ... 3 & 4 Vic., c. 108 ... See 5 H. L. Cas. 460 ... 98 COMMON LAW REPORTS. E. T ... No consideration is stated in this alleged agreement. They also cited Denton v. Richmond (b). W. A. Exham replied. Cur. ad. rota LEFROY, C. J., now delivered the judgment of the Court. May 8. In this case, which comes before the Court ... ...