Doe on The Demise of Sheppard v Allen
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 July 1810 |
| Date | 03 July 1810 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 32
Common Pleas Division
Applied, Johnstone v. Hall, 1856, 2 K. & J. 424. Distinguished, Griffin v. Tomkins, 1880, 42 L. T. 362.
But the Court held that it was more than a promise, and was equivalent to an attual payment of the money into the Plaintiff's hand; and made the Rule absolute. [78] DOE, ON THE DEMISE OF SHEPPARD, V. ALLEN. July 3, 1810. [Applied, Johnstone v. Hall, 1856, 2 K. & J. 424. Distinguished, Griffin v. Tonkin; 1880, 42 L. T. 382.] If a lessee exercise a trade on the demised premises, by which his lease is forfeited, the landlord does not, by merely lying by, and witnessing the act for six years, waive the forfeitures Some positive act of waiver, as receipt of rent, is necessary. But if be permits the tenant to expend money in improvements, amble that that is evidence to be left to a jury of his consent to the alteration of the premises.Per Mansfield, C. J. This was an ejectment brought to recover possession of a messuage and shop in Northgate,street, Bath, which the lessor of the Plaintiff, by lease of the 18th day of December 1802, had demised to William Dore, his executors, administrators, and assigns, for the term of 28 years, determinable on lives ; "provided, that if the lessee, his executors, administrators, or assigns, should, at any time thereafter during the term thereby granted, permit or suffer any person or persons to inhabit or dwell in or upon the demised premises, or any part thereof, who should therein use, exercise, carry on, or follow, (amongst other the trades therein enumerated,) the trade of a butcher, or any other dangerous, noisy, noisome, or offensive trade or calling whatsoever, or if all, or any one or more of the covenants, clauses, and agreements therein contained on the part of the lessee, his executors, administrators, or assigns, should, during the term, be infringed or broken in any respect whatsoever, their it should be lawful for the lessor to re-enter." And the lessee covenanted " that he, his executor; administrators, and assigns, would not, during all or any part of the term., exercise upon all or any part of the premise; the trade of a Vic.butcher, c. or any other dangerous, noisy, noisome, or offensive trade or calling whatsoever." Upon the trial of this cause at the Taunton spring assizes 1810, before Graham B., it appeared that the lessee Dore had, in July 1803, for the consideration of 951., assigned the premises to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Samuel (P.) & Company Ltd v Dumas
...other party intends to do something which will be a breach, he simply stands by and leaves him to take his course. ( Shepherd v. Allen, 3 Taunt. 78.) As to the policy I suppose it is plain that the signing clerk at the Bureau has no authority from Mr. Dumas to do anything but to see that t......
-
Tennent and Others v Neil
...4 C. B. N. S. 379. Ward v. DayENRENR 4 B. & S. 355; Ev. Ch. 5 B. & S. 354. Lefroy v. WalshUNK 1 Ir. C. L. R. 311. Sheppard v. AllenENR 3 Taunt. 78. Gibson v. DoegENR 2 H. & N. 615. Foley v. WilsonENR 1 East, 56. Presumption Covenant Release Additional Rent Misdirection. 418 THE IRISH REPORT......
-
Caroline Bridges against Richard Blanchard
...Leroux v. ParMn (1 Esp. 230), Doe dem. Winddey v. Pye (1 Esp. 366), Doe dem. Foley v. Wilson (11 East, 56), Doe dem. Sheppard v. Allen (3 Taunt. 78). Lord Denman C.J. Great research-and ingenuity have been shewn in arguing this case; but it will not be necessary to enter into a consideratio......
-
Gibson v Susannah Doeg
...the premises were used for trade and business, is evidence for the jury of a licence by him so to use them : Doe d. Sheppaid v. Allen (3 Taunt. 78). The proviso does not render the lease absolutely void, but merely voidable at the election of the lessor. Ainsby v Woodward (6 B. & C. 519). S......