Gray v Hill
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 June 1826 |
| Date | 20 June 1826 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 1070
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Referred to, Bevan v. Waters, 1828, 3 C. & P. 520.
1070 GKAY V. HILL RY. & MOOD. 421. Westminster, June 20, 1826. gray v. hill. (The plaintiff repaired certain leasehold premises held by the defendant under a covenant to repair, on a parol promise by the defendant to assign him his lease . Held, that the defendant, upon refusal to assign, was liable on an implied assumpsit to pay the plaintiff for such repairs.) [Referred to, Sevan v. Waters, 1828, 3 C. & P. 520.] Assumpsit, on a special agreement, to assign to the plaintiff a lease of certain premises, of which the defendant was possessed, in consideration that the plaintifl would put the premises in good and sufficient repair, within the covenant of the defendant in the lease. Averment, that the plaintiff did put the premises in repair, and breach that the defendant refused to assign the lease. There was a count for work and labour, and the usual money-counts. It was proved, that the premises had been admitted by the defendant to be in extreme want of repair, and that the landlord had given the defendant notice of his intention to sue him on the covenant, unless the premises were put into sufficient [421] repair within a certain time. Upon this it was verbally agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant, that the plaintiff should repair the premises, and the defendant would assign his lease to him. The plaintiff expended a considerable Hum of money on the premises, and put them m complete repair. Upon his demanding an assignment of the lease, the defendant refused. Vaughan Serjt. for the defendant, contended, that the agreement was void under the Statute of Frauds, and the plaintiff could therefore not recover damages for the breach of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Savage v Canning
...Cannan v. Reynolds 5 E. & W. 553. Cutter v. Powell 2 Smith, L. C. 1. Teal v. AutyENR 4 B. Moore, 542; 2 Br. & B. 99. Gray v. HillENR Ryan & Moody, 420. Griffith v. YoungENR 12 East, 513. Mayfield v. WadsleyENR 3 B. & C. 357. Mavor v. PyneENR 3 Bing. 285. Bragg v. Cole 6 B. Moore, 114. Harma......
- Phillips v Ellinson Brothers Pty Ltd