Ex parte Henry Philip Hope, William Henry Aston and Joseph Schofield Joshua Hanson and James Hanson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 July 1858 |
| Date | 09 July 1858 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 44 E.R. 1203
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. 27 L. J. Bk. 40; 4 Jur. (N. S.), 1164; 6 W. R. 789.
[92] Ex parte henry philip hope, william henry aston and joseph schofield. In the Matter of joshua hanson and james hanson. Before the Lords Justices. July 9, 1858. [S. C. 27 L. J. Bk. 40; 4 Jur. (N. S.), 1164; 6 W. E. 789.] An agreement for a lease of a mill provided that the machinery on the mill at the commencement and expiration of the tenancy should be valued, and the increase or diminution in value paid by the lessor or lessee, as the case might be. The lessee became bankrupt, having improved the machinery. The assignees elected not to continue the tenancy, and the value of the improvements was as ascertained. Held, that against this amount the landlord might set off the rent and also a demand for goods sold and delivered. 1204 EX PARTE CALVERT SDEQ.&J. 93. This was the appeal of the assignees against the decision of the Commissioner allowing a set-off to the Respondents under the following circumstances:- By an agreement dated the 1st of June 1854, and made between the Respondents John Haigh, George Armitage Haigh and Joseph Armitage Haigh of the one part, and the bankrupts of the other part, the Respondents agreed to let to the bankrupts, and the bankrupts agreed to take of them, a mill and machinery. And it was a part of the agreement, that on the entry of the bankrupts as tenants the machinery should be valued, and that a like valuation should be made on the determination of the tenancy, and that the surplus or deficiency which might be found to arise after such re-valuation should be paid by one of the said parties to the other of them as the case might be. And it was further agreed that the tenancy might be determined by either party giving to the other six calendar months' notice in writing. The lessees were adjudicated bankrupts on the 26th of March 1858, having made additions to the machinery to the value of £238, 13s. Id. The assignees elected not to take the bankrupts' interest under the agreement. The Commissioner, on the Respondents' application, [93] held that they were entitled to set off against the demand on behalf of the bankrupts' estate in respect of this increased value the amounts due for arrears of rent, and for goods sold and delivered, and which exceeded considerably £238...
To continue reading
Request your trial