Gibson v Susannah Doeg

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date24 November 1857
Date24 November 1857
CourtExchequer

English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 253

IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER

Gibson
and
Susannah Doeg

S. C. 27 L. J. Ex. 37, 6 W. R. 107. Followed, Hepworth v. Prckles, (1900) 1 Ch. 108; Clippens Oil Company v. Edinburgh and District Water Trustees, (1904) A. C. 64 Referred to, Heath v Deane, (1905) 2 Ch. 93

gibson v. susannah doeg. Nov. 24, 1857.-A lease contained a covenant on the part of the lessee that he would not, without the consent of the lessor, use, exercise, or carry on in the demised premises any trade or business whatsoever, 254 GIBSON V. DOEG 2 H. ft N. 616. nor convert the dwelling-houses into a shop, nor suffer the same to be used for any Other purpose than dwelling-houses. One of the dwelling-houses was converted into a public house and a grocery shop, and the lessor, with full knowledge of it, for more than twenty years received the rent. The plaintiff, having purchased the reversion of the lessor, brought an action of ejectment for the breach of the covenant. Held, that the user of the premises in their altered state for more than twenty years, with the knowledge of the lessor, was evidence from which a jury might presume a licence. [S. C. 27 L. J. Ex. 37, 6 W. R. 107. Followed, Hepworth v. Pickles, [1900] 1 Ch. 108; Clipp&is Oil Company v. Edinburgh and Distnd Watei Trustees, [1904] A. C. 64 Referred to, Heath v Deane, [1905] 2 Ch. 93 ] Ejectment to recover possession of a piece of land with the messuages, dwelling-houses, shops, &c , thereon built At the trial before Watson, B , at the last Newcastle Summer Assizes, the following facts appeared. By mden [616]-ture made the 19th April, 1822, between Sir Matthew White Ridley of the one part, and Alexander Doeg of the other part, Sir M. W Ridley demised to A. Doeg, a piece of ground, called the " Redbarnes," near the town of Newcastle, together with two dwelling-houses built thereon, for a term of fifty-four yeara at the rents specified. The indenture contained (amongst others) a covenant by Doeg to keep the demised premises in repair, and also the following -" Arid that the said A. Doeg, his executors, administrators, or assigns, shall not, nor will, at any time during the contuiuance of the said term hereby granted, use, exercise, or carry on, or permit or suffer to be used, exercised, or carried on, in or upon the said demised premises, or any part thereof, any trade or business whatsoever without the express consent in writing under the hand of the said Sir M. W. Ridley, his heirs or assigns, for that purpose hrst had and obtained ; nor shall nor will without such consent as aforeeaid, at any time during the said term, make any additional erections or buildings upon the said piece or parcel of ground And shall not nor will, without such consent as aforesaid, convert the said messuages, tenements, or dwelling-houses, or other the premises hereby demised, 01 any part thereof, into a manufactory, shop, warehouse, shed, or place for sale for goods or merchandize; nor use nor suffer the same to be occupied or used in any other manner or for any other purpose than as dwelling-houses and gardens " (Then followed a covenant by A. Doeg not to assign the lease without the consent in writing of Sir M W. Ridley.) " Provided always, nevertheless, and these presents are upon this express condition, that if the said A. Doeg, his executors, &c., shall neglect or fail in the performance or observance of any or either of the covenants or agreements hereinbefore contained, which by him or them are to be performed or observed respectively, then [617] and from thenceforth, in either or any part of the said cases this present demise or lease, and the covenant for quiet enjoyment...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • McMullen v Clancy
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 31 July 2002
    ......Referring to this maxim Pollock, C.B. in Gibson -v- Doeg [1857], 2H. & N. 615 stated "It is a maxim of the law..togive effect to everything to ......
  • Banning v Wright
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 14 June 1972
    ...such sales continued openaly and notoriously for upwards of twenty-four years. Following lessor and lessee cases such as Gibson v. Doey 2 H. & N. 615 Farwell J. held that the covenant had been waived or released. 71 In my view, when the settlement in the present case was arranged there was ......
  • City and Westminster Properties (1934) Ltd v Mudd
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • Invalid date
    ......For instance, in Gibson v. Doeg F11 the period was 20 years, in Gibbon v. Payne F12 it was 40 years, and in Hepworth v. ......
  • Cosby v Shaw
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • 16 July 1888
    ...and Walsall Railway Co. v. London and North-Western Railway Co. Ibid. 433. Catt v. TourleELR L. R. 4 Ch. App. 654. Gibson v. DoegENR 2 H. & N. 615. Haslett v. BurtENR 18 C. B. 893. Sunderland v. NewtonENR 3 Sim. 450. Martyr v. BradleyENR 9 Bing. 24. Longbottom v. BerryELR L. R. 5 Q. B. 123.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT