Grimman against Legge
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 June 1828 |
| Date | 07 June 1828 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 108 E.R. 1063
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 2 Man. & Ry. 438; 6 L. J. K. B. O. S. 321. Followed, Phen v. Popplewell, 1862, 12 C. B. K S. 340.
[324] grimman against legge. Saturday, June 7th, 1828. A. demised to B. the first and second floor of a house for a year, at a rent payable quarterly. During a current quarter, some dispute arising between the parties, B. told A. that she would quit immediately. The latter answered, she might go when she pleased. B. quitted, and A. accepted possession of the apartments: Held, that A. could neither recover the rent, which, by virtue of the original contract, would have become due at the expiration of the current quarter; nor rent pro rata, for the actual occupation of the premises for any period short of the quarter. [S. C. 2 Man. & Ey. 438; 6 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 321. Followed, Phen6 v. Popplewell, 1862, 12 C. B. K S. 340.] Assumpsit for use and occupation. Plea, general issue. At the trial before Lord Tenterden C.J., at the Middlesex sittings after last term, it appeared that in October 1826, the plaintiff agreed to let to the defendant for a year from the 25th of December following, at a rent of 501., payable quarterly, the first and second floor of a house in York Street, Bryanstone Square. The defendant entered at Christmas, and paid a quarter's rent on the 25th of March 1827. In April a dispute having taken place between the plaintiff and defendant, the latter said she would quit. The plaintiff said she might go when she pleased, and he should be glad to get rid of her. The defendant began to remove her furniture on the following day, and continued removing it for three days. On the 19th of April she delivered the keys of the rooms to the plaintiff, and he accepted them. Upon this Lord Tenterden told the jury that the defendant was liable to pay the quarter's rent due at midsummer 1826, unless there was an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant that the latter should quit without paying any rent, and he directed them to find for the defendant if they thought from the evidence that such an agreement was made between the parties. The jury having found a verdict for the defendant, Campbell now moved for a new trial. Assuming that there was evidence of a license given by the landlord [325] to the tenant to quit, Mollett v. Brayne (2 Campb. 103), shews that the landlord is entitled to recover the whole quarter's rent. There the landlord, having had a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fong Holdings Pte Ltd v Computer Library (S) Pte Ltd
...1 KB 130 (folld) Fenner v Blake [1900] 1 QB 426 (distd) Foster v Robinson [1951] 1 KB 149 (folld) Grimman v Legge (1828) 8 B & C 324; 108 ER 1063 (folld) Highway Properties Ltd v Kelly, Douglas & Co Ltd (1971) 17 DLR (3d) 710 (distd) Oastler v Henderson (1876-1877) 2 QBD 575 (distd) Phene v......
-
Thursby and Others v Plant
...v. Atdiesm. 11 Moore, 379, S. C. Nor can he recover the rent pro raid for so long a time as the tenant occupied since the last rent day. 8 B. & C. 324, Grimman v. Legge. 2 Mann. & E. 438, S. C. 5 B. & C. 332, Hall v. Burgess. 8 D. & E. 67, S. C. So in an action of debt for rent, it is a goo......
-
Torminster Properties Ltd v Green
...the Apportionment Act 1870 it was not recoverable pro rata for so long a time as the tenant occupied the premises before surrender. Grimman v. Legge, (1828) 8 Barnewell & Cresswell, 324; Slack v. Sharpe, (1838) 8 Adolphus & Ellis, 366. 2. Rent which has accrued or become due at the date of ......
-
Savage v Canning
...C. B. 858. Buttermere v. HayesENR 5 M. & W. 456. Kelly v. WebsterENR 12 c. B. 283. Chater v. BeckettENR 7 T. R. 201. Grimshaw v. LeggeENR 8 B. & C. 324. Mechelen v. Wallace 7 A. & E. 49, 55, 56. Buttermere v. HayesENR 5 M. & W. 456. Vaughan v. HancockENR 3 C. B. 766. Hodgson v. Johnson 1 E.......