Doe d. Nash v Birch
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 490
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 1 Tyr. & G. 769; 2 Gale, 26; 5 L. J. Ex. 185. See Jones v. Carter, 1856, 15 M. & W. 718; Dendy v. Nicholl, 1859, 4 C. B. N. S. 376.
[402] doe D. nash . birch. Exch. of Pleas. 1830.-Ejectment for a forfeiture. A., by an agreement in writing, let to B. a house at the rent of 601. a year, to be paid quarterly ; and B. agreed, within three calendar months, to erect a shop-front, and otherwise repair, paint, paper, and white-wash the house. And it was further agreed, that if B. did not erect the shop-front within three months, it should ba lawful for A. or his agents to retake possession of the premises, and the agreement should be null and void. B. continued in the possession of the premises, and enlarged the window, but, as the plaintiff contended, did not erect a shop-front. It appeared also, that, after a. quarter's rent had become due, and after the expiration of three months from the date of the agreement, A.'s son, the father being too ill to attend to business, made a demand of a quarter's rent, which B. offered to pay, if he would indemnify him for a sum which he had paid as a penalty to A.'s lessor for carrying on a trade in the premises, which was refused. At the trial, B., the defendant, contended that he had made a shop-front which answered the purposes of his trade; and he offered to shew that A. held the premises under a lease from C., which contained a clause imposing a penalty upon the lessee, if he allowed a trade to be carried on upon the premises, from which it was to be inferred that the words shop-front, in the agreement, were used in a peculiar sense; but this evidence was rejected :-Held, that such evidence was clearly inadmissible to explain the meaning of the words shop-front, in the agreement:-Held, also, it not having been proved that A. himself had had any notice of the nature of the alterations, that the son had not sufficient authority to waive the forfeiture.-(Quaere, whether the demand of rent which became doe subsequent to a forfeiture, amounts to a waiver of the forfeiture.- Held, also, that the proviso in the agreement, that it should become " null and void," made it a lease voidable only at the election of the lessor. [S. C. 1 Tyr. & G. 769; 2 Gale, 26; 5 L. J. Ex. 185. See Jones v. Carter, 1856, 15 M. & W. 718 ò Dendy v. Nichott, 1859, 4 C. B. N. S. 376.] Ejectment to recover a house and premises in Crawford Street, in the parish of 1M. &W. 403. DOE V. BIRCH 491 St. Mary-le-bone, in the county of Middlesex. The cause was tried before Lord Abinger, C. B., at the Middlesex Sittings after last Michaelmas Term, when it appeared that the lessor of the plaintitt' was the lessee of the premises in question under Mr. JPortman, for a long term, and that the defendant had agreed with one George Ghowles, the agent of the lessor of the plaintiff, for a lease of the premises in question, which was then a private house, for the purpose of opening it as an eating-house and bear-shop. By that agreement, which was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenwood Reversons Ltd v World Environment Foundation Ltd
...were arrived at after a careful review of various observations going back to 1836 when Parke B had expressed a similar view in Doe d.Nash v Birch 1 M&W 402. There is no authority in this court or the House of Lords approving those decisions and the point is therefore open in this court, tho......
- Welch v Birrane
- The Brimnes ; Tenax Steamship Company Ltd v The Brimnes (Owners)
- Corrigan v Irish Land Commission
-
Does Demanding Rent Waive The Right To Forfeit? (Was Lord Neuberger Always Right?)
...forward in support of a demand for rent operating as a waiver can be traced back to the obiter comments of Parke B. in Doe d. Nash v Birch 150 E.R. 490, in 1836, a case which did not turn on the demand for rent. Another issue is that authorities cited by advocates and judges, alike, in supp......
-
Does Demanding Rent Waive The Right To Forfeit? (Was Lord Neuberger Always Right?)
...forward in support of a demand for rent operating as a waiver can be traced back to the obiter comments of Parke B. in Doe d. Nash v Birch 150 E.R. 490, in 1836, a case which did not turn on the demand for rent. Another issue is that authorities cited by advocates and judges, alike, in supp......