Doe dem. Ambler against Woodbridge
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1829 |
| Year | 1829 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 140
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 4 Man. & Ry. 303; 7 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 263. Distinguished, Walrond v. Hawkins, 1875, L. R. 10 C. P. 349. Approved, Powell v. Hemsley, [1909] 1 Ch. 688; [1909] 2 Ch. 259.
doe dem. ambler against woodbkidge. Thursday, May 7th, 1829. In ejectment for a forfeiture incurred by using rooms in a house in a manner prohibited by the lease: Held, that such user was a continuing breach, and that the landlord was not, by receiving rent, precluded from taking advantage of the forfeiture, provided the user continued after such receipt of rent. [S. C. 4 Man. & Ky. 303 ; 7 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 263. Distinguished, Walrond v. Hawkins, 1875, L. R. 10 C. P. 349. Approved, Powell v. HemsUy, [1909] 1 Cb. 688; [1909] 2 Ch. 259.] Ejectment for a house in the City of London. Plea, not guilty. At the trial before Lord Tenterden C.J at the London sittings after Hilary term, it appeared that the lessor of the plaintiff was owner of the house in question, which the defendant occupied under a lease, containing a covenant that the tenant should not alter, convert, or use the rooms thereof then used as bed-rooms, or either of them, into or for any [377] other use or purpose than bed or sitting rooms, for the occupation of himself, his executors, &c., or his or their family, without the licence of the lessor in writing; and the lease contained a clause of forfeiture for breach of any covenant. The defendant had let part of the house to a lodger, who occupied up to the time of the trial the rooms specified in the covenant above set out; but the lessor had, after he knew of such occupation, received rent under the lease; and the only question was, whether by so doing he had waived the forfeiture ? Lord Tenterden C.J. thought there was a continuing breach as long as the rooms were occupied contrary to the covenant, and directed the jury to find for the plaintiff, but gave the defendant leave to move to enter a nonsuit. Denman now moved accordingly, and contended, that the receipt of rent by the landlord was a waiver of the forfeiture. In Doe v. Allen(3 Taunt. 78), ejectment was brought for a forfeiture incurred by [carrying on a trade prohibited by the lease. The defendant could not prove any payment of rent after the business was commenced, but it appears to have been admitted by the Court that such proof would have beea an answer to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northern Territory v Mr A. Griffiths (Deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples; Commonwealth of Australia v Mr A. Griffiths (Deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples; Mr A. Griffiths (Deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples v Northern Territory
... ... and interests defeasible at common law but substantially protected against extinguishment, from 31 October 1975, by the Racial Discrimination Act ... ...
-
Gibson v Susannah Doeg
...covenant, and the forfeiture incurred by the alteiation of the premises was waived by the acceptance of rent Doe d. Amblei v. H'oodbndge (9 B & C 376) is relied on by the plaintiff There, however, the words of the covenant were "alter, conveit, or use," and the decision proceeded on the gro......
-
Cayman Arms (1982) Ltd v English Shoppe Ltd
...Q.C. and A. McLaughlin for the plaintiff; E. Grant and O.L. Panton for the defendant. Cases cited: (1) Ambler v. WoodbridgeENR(1829), 9 B. & C. 376; 109 E.R. 140, applied. (2) Baker v. JonesENR(1850), 5 Ex. 499; 155 E.R. 218, applied. (3) Bank of Nova Scotia v. Hellenic Mutual War Risks Ass......
-
Doe dem. Sir Charles Flower, Baronet, against Peck
...rent or distrained on the 30th of September; for the breach of covenant was a continued breach de die in diem. In Doe v. Woodbridge (9 B. & C. 376), where ejectment was brought for a forfeiture incurred by using rooms in a house in a manner prohibited by the lease, it was held that such use......