Horsefall v Mather
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 June 1815 |
| Date | 15 June 1815 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 141
COMMON PLEAS
Referred to, Wedd v. Porter, [1916] 2 K. B. 91.
June 15, 1815. HORSEFALL V. MATHER. (Tenant at will is not liable to general repairs ; he is bound to use the premises in a husbandlike manner, but no further.) [Referred to, Wedd v. Porter, [1916] 2 K. B. 91 ] This was an action of assumpsit brought against the defendant, who had been tenant from year to year to the plaintiff, for dilapidations and injury to the premises recently in his occupation. The declaration stated, that in consi-[8]-deration that the defendant had become and was tenant to the plaintiff of a certain messuage, &c. he undertook to keep the same in good and tenantable repair , to uphold and support, and to deliver up the same to the plaintiff at the expiration of his term, in the condition in which he received it. It appeared that the defendant had occupied the house about three years at a rack rent. It was in good repair when he entered it , but, upon quitting possession, he had in some degree damaged the ceiling, the walls, and other parts of the house, by removing the shelves and fixtures, and had not left the house in a good tenantable * If after action brought, and before declaration, the defendant offers to pay debt and costs, and the plaintiff refuses to receive it, the Court will permit the defendant to pay into Court the debt and the costs up to the time of his offer only. And the plaintiff will be compelled to pay the costs of the application, and all costs in the action subsequent to the offer. Zeemn v. Oowell, 2 W. P. Taunt. 203 In the same manner, if after action brought, and before money can regularly be paid into Court, a tender is made of a sum for damages, with costs up to that time, and refused, the Court will, on motion, permit that sum to be paid into Court, and struck out of the declaration, and will order all subsequent costs to be paid by the plaintiff, although the plaintiff goes for other causes of action than those on which tke sum is tendered. Roberts v. Lambert, 2 W. P. Taunt. 283 142 SPBATLEY V. SIB H. WILSON HOLT a condition. The plaintiff had been put to some small expence in refitting it for the occupation of a new tenant. The plaintiff gave no other evidence than the occupation of the premises by the defendant. Lena, Serjeant, for the plaintiff, contended, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v Marshall
...to support the allegation of an account stated : Highmore v. Primrose (4) ; Porter v. Cooper (5) ; Prouting v. Hammond (6) ; _Newhall v. Holt (7); Eicke v. Nokes (8). 3. 2 T. R. 80. (5) 1 Cr. M. & R. 387. 4. Cowper, 227. (6) 8 Taunt, 688. 5. 3 Doug. 13. . (7) 6 M. & W. 662. 6. 1 M. & Selw. ......
-
Mancetter Developments Ltd v Garmanson Ltd
...such as to show that he had not used the premises "in a husbandlike manner" (per Lord Justice Bankes at page 6, quoting Gibbs C.J. in Horsefall v. Mather [1815] Holt, N.P. 7) or "in a tenantlike manner (per Lord Justice Scrutton at page 7) and Lord Justice Atkin at page 8 used both these ex......
-
Pomfret v Ricroft
...M. 7 Taunt. 392, Jones v. Hill, and 1 B. Moore, 100, S. C. See post, Saund. 252. Tenant from year to year is not liable to general repairs; Holt, 7, Horse/all v. Mather; but the mere relation of landlord and tenant is sufficient to raise an implied assumpsit to use the premises in a husband......
-
Elizabeth May Ramus v Claire Louise Holt (as executor and beneficiary of the estate of Christopher Stewart Ramus)
...pecuniary legacies in a total sum of £9,000. He had 5 grandchildren: Reggie Ramus (13) and Ellery Ramus (10), Alistair's children, and Rock Holt (7), Axel Holt (5) and Hunter Holt (5), Mrs Holt's 8 By clause 11 Mr Ramus provided that “MY TRUSTEES shall hold my residuary estate upon the foll......
-
Recent Trust Law Decisions in the Court of Appeal
...alleging and proving a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the trustees”. 7.4. Applying these principles to Futter v Futter and Pitt v Holt: 7.4.1. In Futter v Futter, the trustees took advice from solicitors. On that advice, they made distributions believing that would wash out stockpi......
-
The General Article-Elemental Confusion
...r. Sinigar. 5 CSCMA 330. 310, 20 CUIR 46, 65 (1815). 'Tnited States T Doanard, siiiirn, note 82, at KSC?IIA 640. CMR 256'.'United States V. Holt, 7 USCI.4 817, 520, 23 CUlR 81. 83-81 (1957) 'YUnlted Statss s Waluskl, 5 USC>IA 724, 731. 21 CIR 45. 63 11915)."ACY 8238, 15 CMR 555 (1954). "'Ch......