Doe d. Elizabeth Davy v Oxenham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1840 |
| Date | 01 January 1840 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 708
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 10 L. J. Ex. 6; 4 Jur. 1016.
[131] doe d. elkabeth davy v. oxenham. Exch. of Pleas. 1840. - Where a lessor permits his lessee, during the continuance of the lease, to pay no rent for twenty years, the lessor is not therefore barred, by the stat. 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, s. 2, from recovering the premises in ejectment. The case falls within the latter branch of the 3rd section, which, in the case of an estate or interest in reversion, provides that the right of action shall be deemed to have first accrued when it became an estate or interest in possession. The lessor, therefore, may recover in ejectment at any time within twenty years after the determination of the lease. [S. C. 10 L. J. Ex. 6 ; 4 Jur. 1016.] Ejectment for a house and garden. At the trial before Coleridge, J., at the last Devon assizes, it appeared that one Richard Bowden, being seised in fee of the premises in1 question, in the year 1795 demised them to Thomas Duxham and Ann JDuxhum for ninety-nine years, if three persons named in the lease, or the survivors pr survivor of them, should so long live, reserving an annual rent of =38. In 1815, John Davy acquired the fee in the premises, and on his death they descended to his heir at law, George Davy, who, in 1825, devised them to Elizabeth Davy, the lessor of the plaintiff, in fee. In the year 1802, Ann Duxham, the surviving lessee under the lease of 1795, assigned the premises to the defendant, who paid the rent until 1815, when he entered into an agreement with John Davy, that on Davy's being allowed to make certain alterations in the premises, he should not call on the defendant for payment of any further rent during his life. The defendant accordingly occupied the premises without payment of any rent, until the determination of the lease by the death of the last cestui que vie, in 1837. The present action was thereupon commenced, the defendant having refused to give up the possession. It was contended for the defendant, that the right of the lessor of the plaintiff was barred by the stat. 3 and 4 Will. 4, c. 27, more than twenty years having elapsed since 1815, at which time the right of action, by reason of the non-payment of the rent, first accrued. The learned Judge overruled the objection, and a verdict was found for 7M.'&W.m DOE V. OXENHAM 709 the:plaintiff, leave being reserved to the defendant to move to enter a verdict, if the Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- St. Marylebone Property Company Ltd v Fairweather
-
Owen v De Beauvoir
...3, the defendant must have voluntarily discontinued the receipt of the rent, or, as observed by Alderson, B., in Doe (I. Davy v. Oxenham (7 M. & W. 131), "a party might lose his estate by having an insolvent tenant," or, as might be added, by indulgence, or reluctance to enforce a small rig......
-
Grant v Ellis
...to maintain ejectment would not be affected by the act, under the circumstances disclosed in these pleadings : Dne d. Davy v. Oxmham (7 M. & W. 131). The rent in question in this case would not have been affected by the former act of limitation as to rent, viz. the 32 Hen. 8, c. 37 : see Pu......
-
DREW v LORD NORBURY. [Chancery.]
...v. Pulvertoft 18 Ves. 84. Metcalfe v. Pulvertoft 1 Ves. & Be. 181. Croker v. MartinENR 1 Bli. N. S. 573. Doe d. Davy v. OxenhamENR 7 M. & W. 131. Chadwick v. BroadwoodENR 3 Beav. 308. Doe d. Newman v. GodsillUNK 4 A. & El. N. S. 603; n.; S. C. 5 Jur. 170. CASES IN EQUITY. 171 DREW v. LORD N......