Hill v Barclay
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1810 |
| Date | 1810 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 33 E.R. 1037
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
16 VES. JUN. 402. HILL V. BARCLAY 1037 [402] hill v. barclay. March 1st, Id, 1810. As to relief against an Ejectment by a landlord for breach of a covenant to repair, Qucere. The Plaintiff was tenant for years tinder the Defendant; with covenants to lay out 150, within a given time : to keep the premises in repair : to leave them in repair at the end of the term ; that it should be lawful for the Defendant twice in the year to enter, and survey the premises ; and to require the necessary repairs to be done within three calendar months ; and a right of entry was reserved upon breach of any of the covenants. An Ejectment being brought by the landlord, assigning various breaches of the covenant to repair, a motion was made for an Injunction. Sir Arthur Piggott, Mr. Richards, and Mr. William Agar, in support of the Motion. Sir Samuel Romilly and Mr. Wing field, for the Defendant. The late case of Sanders v. Pope,(l) and the cases there referred to, were cited : the Counsel for the Defendant insisting upon the distinction, appearing to have been taken in Wadman v. Calcraft (10 Ves. 67) ; which case, it was contended for the Plaintiff, does not, at least by the decision, affect this question : the relief being confined to the breach of covenant by non-payment of rent: the Statute (stat. 4 Geo. IT. c. 28, s. 2) on the same account being equally inapplicable. [403] The Lord Chancellor [EldonJ. With regard to the case, decided by Lord Erskine, upon a covenant to lay out 200 in repairs within a given time, it would not become me at present to say more than that 1 am inclined to think, considerable arguments ma.y be urged against the relief, given in that instance. The Judgment, delivered by Lord Erskine, which is the more valuable, as he comments upon all the cases, that were cited, goes a length (extra-judicial certainly, the circumstances not calling for it), which would reach this case : a general covenant to repair. As to the case of MVadman v. Calcraft, the particular circumstances did not require me, or the Matter of the Rolls, to state the opinion, that we did state in substance, though shortly, upon the doctrine, which must be applied to the case now before me ; that a Court of Equity would not relieve against a breach of a general covenant to do repairs ; the relief being sought upon no other ground than an ejectment, brought upon the clause as to non-payment of rent. As to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crewe Services & Investment Corporation v Gerald Edward Silk
...Crewe claimed damages and specific performance, but the latter claim was abandoned, because of the principle in Hill v Barclay (1810) 16 Ves Jun. 402. 7 The amended particulars of claim quantified the damages claimed at £32,484 -odd, including VAT of £4838—odd. The largest items were about ......
-
Fairbain v the Attorney General of Guyana
...as regards relief against forfeiture was governed by the practice of the Old Court of Chancery; and the case of Hill v. Barclay (1810) 16 Ves Jun 402 or 33 E.R. 1037 is authority for the view that a Court of equity had no jurisdiction to grant a lessee relief from forfeiture for any breach ......