Hersey v Giblett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 January 1854 |
| Date | 23 January 1854 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 69
ROLLS COURT.
S. C. 23 L. J. Ch. 818; 2 W. R. 206. See Moss v. Barton, 1886, L. R. 1 Eq. 476; 35 Beav. 200.
18BEAV.174. HERSEY V. GIBLETT 69 [174] hersey v. g-iblett. Jim. 23, 1854. [S. C. -23 L. J. Ch. 818; 2 VV. E. 206. See mm* v. llartm, 1866, L. K. 1 Eq. 476 ; 35 Beav. 200.] A letting in 1845 to a yearly tenant, and if he should wish a lease, that the lessor will grant the same for seven, fourteen or twenty-one years, at the same rent, is sufficiently certain to be specifically performed. It is to be construed an optional lease for twenty-one years from 1845, determinable at the end of seven or fourteen years, at the option of the tenant. Under such a contract, the landlord might call on the tenant to exercise his option, and, in default, might determine the tenancy, but this might afterwards be waived by a receipt of rent. On the 19th April 1845 Hughes agreed to let, and Hersey to take, a house "as a yearly tenant thereof," at a rent of ,36, and the agreement proceeded thus: "And should William Hersey wish for a lease of the said premises, H. Hughes will grant the same for seven, fourteen or twenty-one years, at the same rent, on the condition that the said William Hersey shall pay for the same, and perform all the covenants by which the said H. Hughes holds the same." The Plaintiff entered into and kept possession, but without declaring his option to take a lease. In 1851 Hughes sold his interest to the Defendant, who had notice of the above agreement. The Defendant continued to receive the rent; but, on the 26th of August 1852, he gave the Plaintiff notice to quit. The Plaintiff in April following applied to take up his lease, which, being refused by the Defendant, this bill was filed for a specific performance of the contract of 1845. The Defendant resisted the specific performance on the following grounds: First, because the agreement was void, in law, for uncertainty, inasmuch as the term to be granted was indefinite as regards the commencement thereof; secondly, because the Defendant himself was not a party to the agreement; thirdly, because the Plaintiff had been guilty of laches in declaring his option to become lessee, though often requested so to do; [175] fourthly, because the Plaintiff had not performed the covenants by which Mr. Hughes held the premises, and in particular, had not repaired them and kept them in repair, and had not insured them against fire; fifthly, because the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Gardner v Blaxill
- Bahr v Nicolay (No.2)
-
Wigan Borough Council v Scullindale Global Ltd
...SA v Kalliroi Navigation Co Ltd [2015] EWHC 2377 (Comm) Fuller v Kitzing [2017] EWHC 810 (Ch), [2017] (Ch) 485 Hersey v Giblett (1854) 18 Beav 174 Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 Mears Ltd v Costplan Services (South East) Ltd [2019] EW......
-
Colin Wayne Hinds and Susan Joan Hinds v Horst Uellendahl, Froukje Uellendahl and Amphora Pty. Ltd [FLR]
...the Bahrs may enforce their interest against their trustee directly: Neale v Willis (1968) 19 P and C R 836 and cf. Hersey v GiblettENR (1854) 18 Beav 174 (1854) 18 Beav 174 (52 ER 69). The Bahrs are therefore entitled to enforce their right of purchase directly against the Thompsons. They ......