Harries v Bryant
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 1827 |
| Date | 10 December 1827 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 38 E.R. 738
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
[89] harries v. bryant. Rolls. Dec. 10, 1827. The assignee of a lease for lives, which contained a covenant for renewal upon the dropping of any life, provided application were made within six months, having omitted, upon the death of one of the cestuisque vie, to apply for a renewal within the six months, filed his bill praying relief, upon the ground that he did not, within the six months, know that the person was dead, or that the deceased person was one of the cestuisque vie named in the lease : The bill was dismissed with costs ; because the Plaintiff might have known the facts, if he had used reasonable diligence, and acted with ordinary prudence. The Plaintiff had taken an assignment of a lease for three lives, which contained a covenant for renewal from time to time, on the falling of each life, upon payment of a small fine, provided application were made for renewal within six months after the life dropped. Alcock, one of the cestuisque vie named in the lease, died on the 31et of January 1822 ; no application was made for a renewal, until the 12th of November 1822 ; and, renewal being then refused, this bill was filed. Alcock had removed from the place where he resided at the granting of the lease ; but died in the immediate neighbourhood of the Plaintiff; having been for gome years the overseer of a parish adjoining to that in which the Plaintiff resided. The Plaintiff alleged, that he neither knew that the deceased person was the life named in the lease, nor that he was dead, until after the expiration of the six months. Mr. Sugden and Mr. Cooper, for the Plaintiff. The principle of a court of equity is compensation, not forfeiture : and here the compensation can be easily ascertained ; for the only injury, which the landlord has suffered, is the non-payment of a pecuniary fine. In Eaton v. Lyon (3 Ves. 692), Lord Alvanley says, " If by unavoidable accident, if by fraud, by surprise, or ignorance not wilful, parties may have been prevented from executing a covenant literally, a court of equity will interfere ; 4 BUSS. 90. LAW V. THOMPSON 739 and, [90] upon compensation being made, the party having done every thing in his power, and being prevented by the means I have alluded to, will give relief." In Bateman v. Murray (cited in 4 Bro. 417), in the House of Lords, Lord Thurlow said, " Courts of equity will relieve the lessee, if he has lost his right by fraud of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hussey v Domvile
...v. Lyon 3 Ves. 689. Eaton v. Lyon 3 Ves. 690. Finch v. UnderwoodELR 2 Ch. D. 310. Firman v. Lord Ormonde Beatty, 347. Harriss v. BryantENR 4 Russ. 89. In Butler v. Lord Portarlington 4 Ir. Eq. R. 1. In re Cootes, Minors 7 Ir. Jurist, 234. Job v. BanisterENR 2 K. & J. 374. Job v. BanisterENR......
-
Samuel Properties (Developments) Ltd v Hayek
...plaintiff, and it was not contended that the present case came within the language of the Master of the Rolls. The next case cited was Harries v. Bryant (1827) Russell. This also concerned a lease for lives with a covenant for renewal on the falling of each life on payment of a small fine p......
-
Hynes Ltd v Independent Newspapers
...where the time requirement for the exercise of the option was not observed, Eatonv. Lyon 1798 3 Ves. Jun. 689, Harries v. Bryant (1927) 4Russ. 89, Reid v. Blagrave (1831) 9 L.J.O.S. Ch.245 and Barrow v. Isaacs & Son 1891 1 Q.B.417 and particular passages from the judgments therein, he said......
-
Wisdom v The Corporation of Dublin
...5 Dow. Parl. Cas. 61. Fitzgerald v. VicarsUNK 5 Dru. & Wal. 298. Shore v. Lord Darnley Lyne's App., case, 6. Harries v. BryantENR 4 Russ. 89. M'Alpine v. SwiftUNK 1 Ball & B. 285. M'Alpine v. SwiftUNK 1 Ball & B. 285; et vide Kane v. Hamilton, 1 Ridg. P. C. 180. Allen v. Hilton 1 Fonbl. On ......