Hayford v Criddle
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 June 1855 |
| Date | 29 June 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 1192
ROLLS COURT
See In re Beyfus & Masters's Contract, 1888, 39 Ch. D. 115.
[Ct3U..\ eh-bz. [477] hayford v. criddle. June 26, 27, 29, 1855. [See In re Beyfus & Masters' s Contract, 1888, 39 Ch. D. 115.] On the purchase of an under-lease, it is not a valid objection to the title that the under-lease may become forfeited by the non-performance of the covenants in the original lease. In 1853 the Defendant contracted to purchase a leasehold house from the Plaintiff, and in 1854 a decree was made for specific performance. In Chambers questions arose, whether, under the following circumstances, the Plaintiff could make a good title, and the matter was referred 'into Court. The state of the title was as follows : - The property was demised by an indenture of the 27th September 1845 to Elizabeth Lothian for seventy-six years, at a peppercorn rent. The lease contained a covenant to insure, and a proviso for re-entry. Elizabeth Lothian, on the 1st of October 1845, sub-demised it to William Carter, reserving a reversion of ten days of the term. Carter, on the 3d of March 1846, mortgaged the under-lease to the Plaintiff, by a sub-lease reserving six days, with a power of sale. The Plaintiff sold the property to the Defendant under the power, and the principal questions were, first, whether the Plaintiff had contracted to sell the under-lease vested in Carter, or the under-lease vested in himself. Secondly, whether, assuming the contract to be to sell the Plaintiff's own interest, the liabilities to forfeiture, by breaches of the covenants contained in the original lease and in the first sub-lease, did not invalidate the title. Mr. R. Palmer and Mr. Tennant, for the purchaser. The Plaintiff contracted to sell a lease, but he now [478] proposes to convey an under-lease of an under-lease. It is now clearly settled that a contract to sell a lease is not satisfied by the conveyance of an under-lease ; Madeley v. Booth (2 De G. & Sm. 718) ; Darlington v. Hamilton (Kay, 550). The breaches of the covenants to insure, &c., by Lothian would cause a forfeiture of the interest purchased, and this ia fatal to the validity of the title ; Doe d. Huston v. Gladwin (6 Q. B. 953) ; Logan v. Hall (4 C. B. 598, 613, 624). Mr. Roupell and Mr. Speed, for the Plaintiff. The purchaser contracted to purchase the Plaintiff's interest, which was known to be an under-lease. Secondly, the question now raised ought to have been disposed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Browne v Warnock
...v. Morton 3 Jur. (N. S.) 1198. Darlington v. HamiltonENR Kay, 550. Mulholland v. Mayor of Belfast 9 Ir. Ch. R. 204. Hayford v. CriddleENR 22 Beav. 477. Groves v. Groves 12 W. R. 45. Leng v. HodgesENR Jacob, 585. Brown v. PringleENRUNK 4 Hare, 124; 8 Jur. 1113. Davis v. BushUNK 8 Jur. 1114, ......