Doe, on the demise of the Company of Proprietors of the Birmingham Canal Navigations, against Bold
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1847 |
| Date | 01 January 1847 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 116 E.R. 423
QUEENS BENCH
[127] DOB, ON THE DEMISE OF THE COMPANY OF PROPRIETORS OF THE BIRMINGHAM canal navigations (a)3, against bold. 1847. On ejectment upon the (a)1 November 5th. Before Lord Denman C.J., Coleridge, Wightman, and Erie Js (a)3 See Chitty on Bills, 374 (ed. 9), and note (u), ibid. (e) This statement was not made in the declaration in the present case. (a)8 The corporation under that title was first created by stat. 34 G. 3, c. 87. See earlier and later Acts, incorporating and uniting companies for carrying on the navigations, from 1 stat. 8 G. 3, c. 38, to stat. 58 G. 3, c. xix. (local and personal, public), recited in (tat. 5 & 6 W. 4, c. xxxiv. (local and personal, public), which, by sect. 1, repeals tha above- mentioned and other Acts, and, by sect. 2, reiincorporates the company by the title stated in the text. 424 DOE V. BOLD 11 0- B. 128. demise of a corporation, it appeared, from defendant's admissions, that he had taken the land by permission of H., a servant of the corporation, and that F., another servant of the corporation, had given him notice to deliver up possession. No lease, nor notice, nor appointment of F. or H. as agent, under seal, was produced. Held, that the jury were rightly directed to find for the plaintiff, if they thought H. and F. were authorised by the company to act. A tenancy at will, commencing in 1824 and determined in 1831, before the coming into effect of stat. 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 27 (31st December, 1833), is no bar, under secta. 2, 7, to an ejectment commenced in 1847. [S. C. 12 Jur. 350.] Ejectment for land in Worcestershire; demise, 1st January, 1847. On the trial, before Erie J., at the last Worcestershire Assizes, it appeared that, in 1831, Joseph Smith, an inspector of the canal of the lessors of the plaintiff, by order of John Freeth, a clerk and superintendent of the company, served notice on the defendant, who was then in possession, that he must give up the land to the company. The defendant answered that he would not give it up, as Houghton, a former clerk and superintendent of the company, had told him to take it and use it as a garden. On another occasion, defendant asked whether the company would allow him a trifle to give it up. It appeared that he had been in possession ever since 1824. No actual lease was produced. For the plaintiff it was contended that this was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cori Development Inc. (Acting by Christopher Stephen Sambrano in his capacity as Receiver) v Richard Edwards
...quit”. (See “Hill & Redman's Law of Landlord and Tenant”, 2009, Vo1.1 at para. A [4509]; and Doe d. Birmingham Canal Navigation v. Bold (1847) 11 QB 127). Were the Leases Lawfully Terminated? 22 The first receiver purported to terminate an existing lease by a letter dated 05 May 2015. It s......