Hancock and Another, Assigness of Nicholles, a Bankrupt, v Caffyn
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 April 1832 |
| Date | 30 April 1832 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 131 E.R. 432
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 1 Moo. & Sc. 521; 1 L. J. C. P. 104.
hancock and another, Assignees of Nicholles, a Bankrupt, v. cajtyn. April 30, 1832. [S, C. 1 Moo. & Sc. 521; 1 L. J. C. P. 104.] Defendant, a leaseholder, underlet to N. and put him in possession under an agreement to grant a lease when N., should have paid 12001., which he was to do by instalments in three years, in the mean time paying rent at certain days to Defendant, subject to distress for nonpayment. Defendant received rent from N. but omitted to pay the superior landlord, who distrained on N. for arrears due from Defendant. N. having become bankrupt, Held, that the damage incurred by this distress was a cause of action on which his assignee might sue. Caffyn, being possessed of a house which he held on a long lease from Harrison the owner, put Nicholles in possession of it by an agreement under seal bearing date September 10, 1828, in which he covenanted to grant Nicholles a lease of the premises by indenture, when Nicholles, should have paid for furniture and other considerations, 12001., which he was to do by instalments in three years: Nicholles covenanted, in the mean time, to pay 2501. a-year to Caffyn for the rent; and that if the rent were in arrear Caffyn should be at liberty to enter and distrain. Nicholles duly paid his rent to Caffyn, but omitted to pay what was due from himself to Harrison ; [359] whereupon, on the 21st October of 1829, when only a quarter's rent was due from Nicholles to Caffyn, Harrison, the superior landlord, distrained on Nicholles for 1251., being half a year's rent due from Caffyn to Harrison on the 24th of July preceding. Nieholles's goods were sold to a disadvantage, and he had also to defray the expense of the distress. Shortly afterwards Caffyn himself distrained for a quarter's rent. Nicholles then became bankrupt, and his assignees brought this action against Caffyn for the damage incurred by Nicholles in having been so as aforesaid subjected to Harrison's distress. The first count of the declaration stated, that before and at the time of committing the grievance by Defendant, as thereinafter next mentioned, the Defendant held and enjoyed a certain messuage, cottage, and premises, situate in the parish of St. George, Hanover Square, in the county of Middlesex, as tenant thereof to one John Harrison, at and under a certain yearly rent, to wit, the yearly rent of 2501. payable by Defendant to said John Harrison, to wit, at London: that whilst Defendant was such tenant to J. Harrison, and before and at the time of committing the grievance thereinafter next mentioned, and before John Nicholles became a bankrupt, to wit, on the 21st October 1829, to wit, at, &c., John Nieholles, at the special instance and request of Defendant, had become and was tenant to Defendant of said messuage, cottage, and premises, with the appurtenances, at and under a certain yearly rent, to wit, the yearly rent of 2501., payable to Defendant quarterly on the 10th December, 10th March, 10th June, and 10th September in every year, to wit, at, &c.; and thereupon it then and there became and was the duty of Defendant, so long as Defendant continued such tenant to J. Harrison, and so long as J. Nicholles continued such tenant to Defendant, to pay said first-mentioned rent to J. Harrison, and to indemnify and save harmless [360] J. Nieholles from and against the payment of any of said rent so payable to J. Harrison over and beyond the amount of said rent so payable to Defendant as aforesaid, which might be due and in arrear from J. Nicholles to Defendant, and from and against any distress, or costs, charges, damages, or expenses which should or might be made, arise, or happen to J. Nicholles for or by reason of the nonpayment thereof; and although said tenancy of Defendant to J. Harrison, and said tenancy of J. Nicholles to Defendant, was and continued for a long time until and (a) Morris v, Edgington, 3 Taunt. 24. Kooystra, v. Lucas and Others, 5 B, & A. 830. 8 BING. 361. HANCOCK V. CAFFYN 433 after the committing of the grievances thereafter next mentioned, and although a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boorman and Others against Brown
...of resulted directly from the defendant not keeping his covenant; yet it was held that tort lay for the breach of duty. Hancock v. Caffyn (8 Bing. 358), is a similar case; and there Burnett v. Lynch (5 B. & C. 589), was relied upon. Cvrbdt v. Patkington (6 B. & C. 268), and Orton v. Butler ......
-
Rogers v Spence
...wrongs and suuh causes of action as would abate by death." There the action was in form ex contract!] ; but in Hancock- \. Cujfyn (8 Bing. 358 ; 1 M. & Scott, 521) the action was ex delicto. There the defendant, a leaseholder, underlet to Nicholles, and put him in possession, under an agree......
-
Richard Thornton Brown, - Plaintiff in Error; Thomas Hugh Boorman, Thomas Boorman, and Thomas Martyr Wild, - Defendants in Error
...v. Layton (2 New Rep. 365), Pozzi v. Shipton (8 Adol. and E. 963), Coggs v. Bernard (2 Lord Raym. 909; Comyns, 133), Hancock v. Caffyn (8 Bing. 358), (where it is said that the law implies it to be the duty of the landlord to protect his tenant against distress from the superior landlord), ......
-
Daniel Beckham, - Plaintiff in Error; William Walker Drake and John Surgey, - Defendants in Error
...to the assignees; Clark v. Culvert (3 B. Moo. 96; 8 Taunt. 742), Rogers v. Spence (12 Cl. and Fin. 700). The case of Hancock v. Caffyn (8 Bing. 358), which was an action for damages for an improper distress levied by the bank-[584]-rupt, supports this argument, for the right of the assignee......