Digby v Atkinson and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1815 |
| Date | 01 January 1815 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 88
KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Referred to, Wedd v. Porter, [1916], 2 K. B. 91, In re Leeds and Batley Breweries and Bradbury's Lease: Bradbury v. Grimble, [1920], 2 Ch. 548.
digby v. atkinson and another. (If after the expiration of a written lease containing a covenant by the tenant to keep the premises in repair, he verbally agrees to hold over, paying an additional rent, nothing more being expressed between the parties respecting the terms of the new tenancy, he is presumed to hold under the covenants of the former lease, as far as they are applicable to his new situation ; and if the premises are afterwards burnt down by accidental fire, he is bound to rebuild them. If a lease contains a covenant by the tenant to keep the premises in repair, and a covenant to insure them for a specific sum against fire ,-on their being burnt down, his liability on the former covenant is not limited to the amount of the sum to be insured under the latter.) [Eeferred to, Wedd v. Porter, [1916], 2 K. B 91 , In re Leeds and Batley Breweries and Bradbury's Lease : Bradbury v. Gnmble, [1920], 2 Ch 548 ] Assumpsit. The declaration alleged that in consideration that defend-[276]-ants had become and were tenants to plaintiff, of a warehouse and store-cellar, &c., the defendant undertook from time to time, and at all times during the continuance of the said tenancy, well and sufficiently to support, maintain, uphold, repair, amend, pave, cleanse, and keep the said warehouse and store-cellar, and every part thereof, with the appurtenants in, by, and with all manner of needful and necessary reparations, cLeanaings, and amendments, and in particular to continue all the nine props then standing in the said store-cellar upon stone bases under the girders : an averment followed, that defendants had from thence hitherto continued tenants to plaintiff of the premises ;-with a breach stating, that on 25th June 1814, and continually afterwards, defendants had suffered and permitted the said warehouse and store-cellar, with the appurtenants, to be and continue wholly ruinous, prostrate, fallen, and in complete decay for want of the needful and necessary upholding, repairing, and rebuilding thereof. By indenture of lease bearing date 24th December 1790, the plaintiff's father demised the premises in question to Francis Armstrong for 21 years from the Michaelmas day preceding, at the yearly rent of £48, and the lessee...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v Wason
...the expiration of the lease. 106 In the course of his judgment Peterson J. at page 550 said:- “Various cases were cited: Digby v. Atkinson 4 Camp 275: Hyatt v. Griffith, 17 Q.B. 506, Dougal v. Mc Carthy [1893] 1 Q.B. 736, Morgan v. Harrison (1907) 2 Ch. 137 and Cole v. Kelly [1920] 2 K.B. 1......
-
Morrogh v Alleyne
...Elgood 1 A. & E. 191. Thomlinson v. DightonENR 10 Mod. 31. The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Baskinstoke 14 Q. B. 611. 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 ......
-
Andrews and Others v The Patriotic Assurance Company of Ireland
...CompanyENR 1 Hem & M. 618. Clark v. Glasgow Assurance Company 1 Mac. H. L. 668. Bullock v. DommittENR 6 T. R. 650 Digby v. AtkinsonENR 4 Camp. 275. Capel v. ButlerENR 2 S. & S. 457. Stronge v. FooksENR 4 Giff. 408. Polak v. EverettELR 1 Q. B. Div. 669. Wulff v. JayELR L. R. 7 Q. B. 756. Yat......
-
Watson and Wife, Administratrix, Company of Maxwell, v King
...117. (6) See Thynne v. Protheroe, 2 M. & S. 553. * Vide D" Israeli v. Jowett, 1 Esp. 427 ; Johnson V. Ward, 6 Esp. 47 88 DIGBY V. ATKINSON 4 CAMP. 275. tion were not produced ; but there having been an offer to produce them, the Court refused to entertain the question. [275] Garrow, A. G , ......