Doe dem. Antrobus against Jepson and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 April 1832 |
| Date | 18 April 1832 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 144
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 1 L. J. K. B. 154.
£402] doe dem. antrobus against jepson and another.' Wednesday, April 18th, 1832. A lease contained a covenant, among others, that the tenant should not carry any hay, &c. off the premises, under a penalty of 51. per ton, and a clause followed which enumerated all the covenants except the above, and provided, that upon breach of any of the covenants the lessor might re-enter: Held, that the penalty of 51. did not prevent the clause of re-entry from applying to the above covenant, the words of the proviso being large enough to comprehend it. In ejectment under the statute 11 G. 4, and 1 W. 4, c. 70, s. 36, it is no ground for setting aside a verdict for the plaintiff, that he did not give six clear days' notice of trial as required by that section ; the defendant having appeared and made his defence. [S. C. 1 L. J. K. B. 154.] Ejectment under the Statute 11 G-. 4, and 1 W. 4, c. 70, s. 36, upon a proviso for re-entry. At the trial before Bosanquet J., at the last Spring Assizes at Chester, it appeared that the defendants were tenants to the lessor of the plaintiff under a lease for eleven years at a rent reserved. The lease contained the usual covenants, and amongst others a covenant to use, consume, and spend upon the premises all the hay, dung, &c. under a penalty of 51. for every ton carried off; and also a clause for re-entry, which enumerated every covenant in the lease except the covenant to consume the hay, &c. on the premises, and then provided that for the breach of any of the covenants in the lease the lessor might re-enter. On the 5th of March 1832, the defendants sold hay off the premises, whereupon the plaintiff insisted upon the forfeiture, and, on the 12th of the same month, served a declaration in ejectment, the demise being laid on the 9th of March. There was no proof that six clear days' notice of trial had been given to the defendants. It was objected that the plaintiff could not recover, first, because the lease gave the lessor no power to re-enter for a breach of the covenant to consume the hay upon the premises; and, secondly, because it was necessary to shew that notice of trial had been given, that proof being by the statute a condition precedent to the lessor's right to recover. The learned Judge inclined against the defendants upon both points, but gave them [403] leave to move to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Attorney-General v The Bray Township Commissioners and The Bray Pavilion Company Ltd
...11 Ch. Div. 449. West v. DobbELR L. R. 5 Q. B. 460. Hyde v. Warden 3 Ex. Div. 72. Bish v. KeelingENR 1 M. & S. 95. Antrobus v. JepsonENR 3 B. & Ad. 402. Evans v. Davis 10 Ch. Div. 747, 757. Dimes v. The Proprietors of the Grand Junction CanalENR 3 H. L. C. 759. Greenlaw v. KingENR 3 Beav. 4......