Flight v Barton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 June 1832 |
| Date | 16 June 1832 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 40 E.R. 108
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See note to Van v. Corpe, 3 My. & K. 269.
108 FLIGHT V. BARTON 3 MY. & K. 282. [282] flight v. barton. Molls. June 16, 1832. [See note to Van v. Coiye, 3 My. & K. 269.] A party who enters into an agreement for an under-lease, without inquiring into the covenants of the original lease, has constructive notice of all usual covenants in the original lease. Qucere, whether he has such notice of unusual covenants. But where a party entered into an agreement with a lessee for an under-lease, and informed him of the nature of the business which he meant to carry on in the premises, and the lessee did not apprise him that there was a covenant in the original lease prohibiting such business, the silence of the lessee was equivalent to a representation that there was no such prohibiting covenant. The Defendant Barton entered into an agreement to take from the Plaintiff an under-lease of certain premises. The original lease contained a covenant by which certain trades were prohibited. On the treaty for the lease the Defendant stated the nature of the business which he meant to carry on in the premises; and the Plaintiff, not being aware that the prohibiting covenant in the original lease extended to that business, did not apprise the Defendant of such covenant before he entered into the agreement. The bill was filed by the Plaintiff to compel the specific performance of the Defendant's agreement for the under-lease; and it appeared, upon the evidence, that the Defendant's trade was within the scope of the prohibiting covenant in the original lease. Mr. Bickersteth and Mr. Kenyon Parker, for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cullen v O'Meara and Another
...v. Marquis of ConynghamUNK 1 Ir. Ch. Rep. 545. Martin v. Cotter 3 J. & L. 496. Darlington v. HamiltonENR 8 Kay, 550. Flight v. BartonENR 3 My. & K. 282; Dart. V. & P. 58, 74. Barraud v. ArcherENR 2 Sim. 433. Lewis v. BondENR 18 Beav. 85. Smith v. CapronENR 7 Hare, 185. Vignoles v. BowenIR 1......
-
Power v Barrett
...B. & C. 715. Harrison v. Good ELRL. R. 11 Eq. 338. Garnett ELRL. R. 9 Eq. 26. Holt & Co. v. Collyer 16 Ch. Div. 718. Flight v. Barton ENR3 My. & K. 282. Jones v. Rimmer 14 Ch. Div. 588. Redgrave v. Hurd 20 Ch. Div. 1. Palmer v. Locke 18 Ch. Div. 381, at pp. 388—9. Palmer v. Locke 18 Ch. Div......
-
Van v Corpe
...a particular trade is prohibited was equivalent to an undertaking that all other trades were open to the Plaintiff'. In Flight v. Barton (3 My. & K. 282), though the Defendant knew he was dealing for an under-lease, and would, therefore, under ordinary circumstances, have been bound to inqu......