Hart v Windsor

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1843
Date01 January 1843
CourtExchequer

English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 1114

EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS.

Hart
and
Windsor. 1

S. C. 13 L. J. Ex. 129; 8 Jur. 150. Adopted, Mostyn v. West Mostyn Coal and Iron Company, 1876, 1 C. P. D. 152; Wilson v. Finch-Hatton, 1877, 2 Ex. D. 344; Manchester Bonded Warehouse Company v. Carr, 1880, 5 C. P. D. 511. Dictum questioned, Baynes v. Lloyd, [1895] 2 Q. B. 131; Westropp v. Elligott, 1884, 9 A. C. 827; Budd-Scott v. Daniell, [1902] 2 K. B. 351; Jones v. Lavington, [1903] 1 K. B. 253; Markham v. Paget, [1908] 1 Ch. 712.

[68] hart v. WiNDHOR.(a) Exch. of Pleas. 1843.-Debt. The declaration stated, IKJ! ^9*3 fc^afc ^e Pontiff !agreed to let to the defendant a house and garden ground, with "' f " the usb of the fixtures therein, for the term of three years, at a rent payable ! quarterly, the tenant to preserve the messuage and premises in good atid tetiant-: able repair; by virtue of which the defendant entered, and continued in possession until a quarter's rent accrued under and by virtue of the agreement. Plea, that the house was demised to the defendant for the purpose of his inhabiting the same, but that before aud at the time of the agreement, atirl also when the defendant entered, and from thence until aud at the time of his quitting and abandoning the possession of the same, it was not in a fit state or condition for habitation, but in that state that the defendant could not reasonably inhabit or dwell therein, or have any beneficial occupation of the same, by reason of the same being greatly infested with bugs, and not by reason of any act or default of the defendant; and that before the rent or any part of it became due, he quitted the possession, and gave notice thereof to the plaintiff', and ceased all further occupation of the same, and derived no benefit therefrom ; and that from the commencement of the term until his so quitting, he had no beneficial use or occupation of the same. The jury having found for the defendant on the issue raised by this plea :-Held, on motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, that the plea was 110 answer to the action, inasmuch as the law implied no contract on the part of the lessor, that the house was at the time of the demise, or should be at the commencement of the term, in a reasonably fit state and condition for habitation.-Secondly, that the demise being of a house and garden ground, in order to make the plea good, it must be held that, if a house be taken for habitation, and land for occupation, by the same lease, there is such an implied contract for the fitness of the house for habitation as that its breach would authorize the i tenant to give up both. But held,-Thirdly, that there is no implied warranty : on a lease of a house, or of land ; that it is or shall be reasonably fit for habitation, occupation, or cultivation ; and that there is no contract, still less a condition, implied by law on the demise of real property only, that it is tit for the purpose for wbich it is let.-Qiuere whether, if there were such a contract or condition implied by law, generally, it would be implied in a case where the tenant agrees to preserve the premises in tenantable condition. [S. C. 13 L. J. Ex. 129; 8 .Tur. 150. Adopted, Moxtyn v. West Mostyn Coal and Iron Company, 1876, 1 C. P. D. 152; Wilson v. FincLHattan, 1877, 2 Ex. D. 344; Manchester Bonded WcmhouM Company v. (Jan; 1880, 5 (J. P. D. 511. Dictum questioned, Baynes v. Lloyd, [1895] 2 Q. B. (ilO. deferred to, Seark v, Laverick, 1874, L. R. 9 Q. B. 131 ; Westmpp v. EUigM, 1884, 9 A. C. 827; Rudd-Scott v. Daniell, ;[1902] '2 K. B. 351 ; J me* v. Lavington, [1903] 1 K. B. 253 ; Markham v. \ PaffetT[\$Q$] 1 Ch. 712.] I Deibt The declaration alleged, that whereas theretofore, to wit, on the 23d June, ò (ft) This case was argued and decided at the sittings in bane after Hilary Term, 1844, but it is reported thus early on account of the importance of the decision, and its relation to the same subject as the last case. 13M.&W. 69. HART V. WINDSOR 1115 1843, by a certain memorandum of agreement made and entered into between the plaintiff of the one part, and the defendant of the other part, the plaintiff agreed to let, and the defendant agreed to hire and take of the plaintiff, a certain messuage or tenement and garden ground, in the said memorandum of agreement particularly mentioned and described, with the use of several fixtures and things therein, for the term of three years from the 24th of June then instant, at the yearly rent of .£50, payable quarterly, oti the 29th of September, the 25th of December, the 25th of March, and the 24th of June, in each year of the said term, free from all deductions whatsoever ; the first payment thereof to be made on [69] the 29th of September then 'next ensuing, the plaintiff paying all rates and taxes in respect of the said premises, and the defendant paying all personal rates and taxes; and the defendant, amongst other things, agreed to preserve the said messuage or tenement and premises in good and tenantable repair arid condition, and to deliver up the said messuage or tenement and premises in like repair and condition, together with all the keys, fixtures, and other things thereupon or belonging thereto, (reasonable wear and tear and damage by fire only excepted), at the end or other sootier determination of the said term of three years, as by the agreement fully appears; by virtue of which said agreement the defendant then entered into and became possessed of the said messuage or tenement and premises, arid was and continued possessed thereof from the said 24th of June, 1843, until and upon the 29th of September in the same year, when a large sum of money, to wit, 121. 10s. of the rent aforesaid, for one quarter of a year of the said term, ending on the day and year last aforesaid, and then last elapsed, became and was due and payable from the defendant to the plaintiff, under and by virtue of the said agreement, and still is in arrear and unpaid to the plaintiff, whereby, &c. Pleaa: first, a traverse of the agreement stated in the declaration ; secondly, that the said messuage or tenement was so demised and let to the defendant for the purpose of his inhabiting the same, and dwelling therein during the said term : and that before and at the time of making the said agreement, and also at the time when the defendant entered into and became possessed of the messuage or tenement and premises, as in the declaration alleged, and from thence until and at the time of the defendant's quitting, vacating, and abandoning the possession of the same, as hereinafter mentioned, the said messuage or tenement was not in ;i reasonable, tit, and proper1 state or condition for [70] habitation or dwelling therein; and the same was then, and during all the time aforesaid, in that state and condition that the defendant could riot reasonably inhabit or dwell therein, or have any beneficial use or occupation of the same, for and by reason of the same being greatly infested, swarmed, and overrun with noxious, stinking, and nasty insects, called bugs, and not for or by reason of any act, default, or omission of the defendant; and the defendant, before or at the time of his imiking the said agreement, had no notice or knowledge thereof ; and the defendant afterwards, and after he so entered and became possessed of the said messuage or tenement, and before the said sum of 121. 10s., or any part thereof, became due or payable, to wit, on the 25th of June, 1843, discovered and first had notice of the said state and condition of the said messuage or tenement, and of the same being so infested, swarmed, and overrun with bugs as aforesaid ; and thereupon the defendant upon such discovery and notice, and before the said sum of 121. 10s., or any part thereof, became due or payable, to wit, an the day and year last aforesaid, quitted, vacated, and abandoned the possession, and wholly ceased and abstained from all further occupation or possession of the said messuage or tenement and premises so demised as aforesaid, and then gave notice of the premises to the plaintiff of the defendant's having so quitted, vacated, and abandoned the possession of the said messuage or tenement and premises, arid suffered and permitled him to take and have and retain, and he could and might have taken and retained, possessioir of the said messuage or tenement and premises; and the defendant from thence hitherto hath ceased all further possession, use, or occupation of the said messuage or tenement arid premises, and not derived any benefit therefrom : and that at and from the time of the commencement of the said term, until the time of his so quitting, vacating, and abandoning possession of the said [71J messuage or tenement and premises, and ceasing all further occupation thereof, he had no beneficial use or occupation whatever of the same. Verification. Thirdly, that he was induced and persuaded to make and did make and enter into, the said agreement and promise in the said declaration mentioned, by the fraud...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Siney v Corporation of Dublin
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 Enero 1980
    ...In this respect they relied on a long line of authorities illustrated by cases such as Sutton v. Temple 12M & W. 52, Hart v. Windsor 12 M. & W. 68, Brown v.Norton 1954 I.R. 34, Chambers v. Cork Corporation 93I.L.T.R.45, which established the proposition that the mere letting of land, with o......
  • Hussein and Others v Mehlman
    • United Kingdom
    • County Court
    • Invalid date
  • Liverpool City Council v Irwin
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 22 Julio 1975
    ...for work and materials, Young & Marten v. McManus Childs (1969) 1 A.C. 455: or into a contract for letting an unfurnished house — Hart v. Windsor (1845) 12 M. & W. 68: or a furnished house — Collins v. Hopkins (1923) 1 K.B. 617: or into the carriage of a passenger by railway,see Read head v......
  • Western Australia v Ward; Attorney-General (Nt) v Ward;Ningarmara v Northern Territory;Ward v Crosswalk Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 8 Agosto 2002
    ...Ltd (1862) 2 B&S 737 [ 121 ER 1245]; Geary v Clifton Co [1928] 3 DLR 64 at 67 per Wright J. 535Hart v Windsor (1843) 12 M & W 68 at 85 [ 152 ER 1114 at 1121] per Parke B; Markham v Paget [1908] 1 Ch 697 at 716 per Swinfen Eady J; Sixty-Third & Halsted Realty Co v Chicago City Bank & Trust C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • A Warm and Dry Place to Live: Energy Efficiency and Rental Accommodation
    • New Zealand
    • Canterbury Law Review No. 19-2013, January 2013
    • 1 Enero 2013
    ...v Housing New Zealand [1997] 2 NZLR 474. 33 Sutton v Temple (1843) 12 M&W 52 at 64, 152 ER 1108. 34 Hart v Windsor (1843) 12 M&W 68 at 86, 152 ER 1114. Also Arden v Pullen (1842) 10 M&W 321, 152 ER 492, and Lewison (ed) Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant (looseleaf, Thomson Sweet & Maxwell) at......

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